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).
I don’t really ‘disagree’ with him per se, although I do think the official 911 story hasn’t got a gnats leg to stand on, and that the body of what readers/researchers and analysts on matters 911, as well as what’s factually known about it (e.g. Prof. Steve Jones nanothermite & elemental analysis) is strong enough (and very much so) to make a stance believing it was a false-flag to be by far the most rational position to adopt, and I know Craig is cold to the idea or doesn’t really want to entertain that idea, despite the quote, which let’s be honest, is actually non-committal, too general and doesn’t really go anywhere.
I’ll mention a few thoughts of my own while I’m here.
First, the minus and neutral points: I don’t think the Twin Towers were rigged with charges. What Building 7 did was dead weird, the collapse models were kept secret, but I just can’t think of a good reason why it would have been imploded. Distraction? Create endless arguments? Dunno, unproductive, give up…
There has been so much flaky theorising. Some of it may have been deliberately seeded disinformation, but people love to invent sensationalised stuff, and there are plenty of malicious people about, who will start a rumour just for the thrill and ego-gratification of watching it spread through millions of people.
Now, to the serious stuff.
First, there are, I believe, eleven pages that were redacted from the 9/11 Commission Report, and they concern high-up Saudi involvement. These pages are on Daniel Ellsberg’s “Ten Most Wanted Leaks” list. There is also a UK book about the subject; I don’t know if it’s been published.
Note that Saudi Arabia, the US and Israel are all allies.
Now, note that there are cabals within governments. Note, for instance, the case of Libya. Gaddafi’s administration had been falsely fitted up for Lockerbie, but when Tony Blair took office, he reversed UK policy towards Libya. Former allies were rendered to Gaddafi as a bribe.
And when the Labour government fell, it swung back the other way. The UK and France teamed up with the former “terrorists” who’d opposed Gaddafi, NATO was brought in, we’ve seen it all happen. BOTH sides, Labour and Tory, had vested interests in Libya. EACH sides had different secret service connections that enabled the Libyan administration to be used, framed, manipulated, etc. What happened in Libya was dependent on who won the upper hand in the UK.
Maybe you should change your screen-name, lwtc247. Maybe it should b “Living With The Conspiracies“, plural…
So was Bush involved? “Too stupid to be president”, so he was more likely used. Cheney? More likely. They didn’t submit to oath, did they?
Does that make it “false flag”? Well, sort of. Afghanistan was effectively blamed, while Saudi Arabia was just quietly ignored, so absolutely, the wrong flag was pinned on. But it doesn’t look like a secret service operation acting under the orders of the President to me.
lwtc247, the problem with the nanothermite spheres is working out where the fuck they came from. It’s fine to find them in the debris. That doesn’t tell you where they were before all the destruction. And of course it was all cleared up real quick…
The much maligned Mike Ruppert had it right within days of the event. He’d worked as a policeman, he’d met high level corruption before, more than once. And he said something like this:
So ask your average bod on the street, “Who did 9/11?”
How many will answer “Saudi Arabia”? And how many will say “al Qeaeda”, “Osama bin Laden” or “Afghanistan”?
At the very minimum, the US was hit by its own ally, hardly any secrecy about it, and hardly anyone noticed who did it! Nearly everyone fell for the distraction. And us lot, we argued over the melting point of steel. Pfaf.
despite this early hype (see below), perhaps the engineering wasn’t all that it might have been
http://www.bild.me/bild.php?file=41950630021eg66.jpeg
Well, all I’m saying is I think I’ll start up my own demolition company.
The so-called experts charge millions for bringing down a tower block without damaging the surrounding buildings. It turns out that the thousands of explosive charges that they precisely place around the base of the building and throughout the steel skeleton, detonated to the split second by a computer programme, supposedly to cut the support structure in such a way that it will collapse inwards, are nothing but a con trick. All you need to do is splash around a few thousand gallons of aeroplane fuel about two thirds of the way up the tower and light it. Within 2 hours the building will neatly collapse into its own footprint. And if anybody doubts me that it’s that easy, two buildings did exactly that on 911, and a third one did it without any fuel.
Money for old rope!
Many of the surrounding buildings were also either damaged or destroyed as the towers fell. 5 WTC suffered a large fire and a partial collapse of its steel structure. Other buildings destroyed include St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church, Marriott World Trade Center (Marriott Hotel 3 WTC), South Plaza (4 WTC), and U.S. Customs (6 WTC). The World Financial Center buildings, 90 West Street, and 130 Cedar Street suffered fires. The Deutsche Bank Building, the Verizon Building, and World Financial Center 3 suffered impact damage from the towers’ collapse, as did 90 West Street. One Liberty Plaza survived structurally intact but sustained surface damage including shattered windows. 30 West Broadway was damaged by the collapse of 7 WTC. The Deutsche Bank Building, which was covered in a large black “shroud” after September 11 to cover the building’s damage, was demolished because of water, mould, and other severe damage.
This is in addition of course to 7 WTC which was hit and severely damaged by debris falling from the Twin Towers which contributed to it’s ultimate collapse.
Any controlled demolition done so badly would earn you the sack.
“Any controlled demolition done so badly would earn you the sack” Only the 3 WTCs that came down had molten metal in the basements – the nearer than WTC7 damaged with steel frames still standing did not.
If the hasbaric sayanim are here, 911 was done by the matzos and not the muzzies !
The $2.3 trillion hole announced by Rumsfeld on the Monday (not the usual Friday bad news to be buried over the weekend) a day before, is the key. So a cessna pilot precisely flew a 757 at 500mph at ground level straight into the 44 accountants , of all people, in the VAST 10,000 staffed Pentagon ! Silversteins $7b was small change, the trillion dollars worth of F18,F16,Awacs,Patriots,etc,etc stock held in Israel was written off !! No records or accountants available anymore !
BTW-they even followed the kennedy template, 5 Zapruder wannabees found hava nagillaing in the car park after recording for Mossad rememberencing parties and archives.
Is due in Norfolk Virginia after 50 years of service for decommissioning (including 8 nuclear reactors, to cost a billion dollars) by 15th November (guest invites 27th Nov to 1st December). Assuming a 15 day voyage from the Persian Gulf, it should commence its return by end of October or …….?! 4,000 lower forms of life goyim on board, their families should be getting worried or at least check if the few yids on board have received text messages!!
Clark. In a murder case, the prosecutor doesn’t need to say where the murder weapon came from. All that’s needed is evidence that the weapon was used to commit the murder. Asking where it came from is the first step along a path of near infinite regression and not relevant, helpful or necessary.
Re: Mike Rupert and they control all of the evidence. They didn’t control the one that found the nanothermite in the waste. All ‘they’ control is the crap like the Kean Commission report and BS computer models designed to try and match the official story (and they thy weren’t able to do that very well either). They control their information that’s all. I wouldn’t take MR’s word as Gospel.
To believe Saudi Arabia did 9-11 is almost as fanciful as the “19 arabs did it” hypothesis.
‘We’ argue over the melting point of steel because the implications would be that it would furnish scientific proof that a weakened building and jet fuel/office fires could not have caused the effects seen afterwards. Hence the average man in the street would begin to pay the matter some attention. Like the bullet wounds and angles through PC Yvonne Fletcher or JFK.
“I just can’t think of a good reason why it [WC7] would have been imploded”. That could be because you’ve severed the only known phenomenon has ever achieved such a result as a precondition to wondering what could have happened to it. I’m not surprised you find it dead weird.
Yes to flaky theorizing, energy rays and so on., yes to deliberately seeded false info (like July 7 2005 stuff), but only agree to a tiny amount about the sensationalism – but the corporate mainstream media had/has a massive monopoly on that. Don’t agree much about the egoism. 911 researchers pay a heavy cost, any possible ego trip could never cover the expenses.
Saudi, “Israel” and US are buddies… Yip. Hence its buddy Saudi didn’t do 911. Doubtless the redactions were for commercial reasons, as is common. It matters not that one govt goes to war against A and a different govt goes to war against B. What matters is that governments go to war against A and B.
No need to change my name to the plural. It was 9-11 and the related anthrax attacks that irreversible perturbed my life. Bush Cheney non-oath are pretty meaningless as it was probably arrogance rather than fear of the divine at work here.
To believe that any and ALL secret groups operating in or somehow connected to a state MUST be connected to the formalised power structure we see, i.e. always involving the president or prime minister is very wishful thinking. I doubt numbskull Bush was involved and Cheney just on the outside.
WTC7 housed the entire 911 command and control unit – nice way to get rid of DNA evidence too.
[Mod/Clark – I moved this comment here from the Rarity of Whistleblowing thread]
@Komodo – you say it only takes a minute to accept the official story on 911, and you cite Wikipedia, citing a civil engineer. That’s silly. If you don’t know why, I’m not going to explain.
But if you do hold that view in good faith, you must surely disagree, not agree, with the thrust of Craig’s post. The post is about the rarity of whistleblowing and the culture of keeping shtum because exposing corruption, criminality including child abuse, and lies, is more than people’s jobs are worth, because they feel they have invested so much of their “selves” in the system that pays them their wages.
By the way I know some very experienced retired civil engineers who say that the collapse of the main towers because of impact from fuel-laden aircraft was “impossible”.
May I ask you a question? Well, two questions. Are you aware that in the immediate aftermath of the Sep 2001 attacks, the story put out by the major US news media, such as CNN, was that bombs had gone off in the basements of the twin towers, and also that the State Department was car-bombed?
If you didn’t know that, are you surprised? Or perhaps you think I am deluded, and want me to ‘prove’ what I saw with my own eyes, as in fact many millions of other people must have done too? I wonder how many people have ‘forgotten’ that that’s what they were told by their ‘information providers’, shortly after the attacks took place. Probably more than 99.99%. That’s the epoch we live in. Scary or what?
The other question is whether you are aware that the official story is that the aircraft which was allegedly flown into the Pentagon managed to go through a doorway, which remained standing, because its wings smashed up as it did.
It won’t help if you refer to lizards in your reply! 🙂
The TV generation still believe it is true. They have been fed all the films and stories into their pre-programmed heads and any suggestion that what they saw and were told was not all true are easily defended by the “conspiracy theorist” label that they have been programmed to attach to any free thinkers.
Who controlled all this brain washing? Why, non other than our friends in the mainstream media, including our own paedophile sheltering BBC, who goofed as usual and reported the fall of building WTC 7 twenty minutes too early.
The simple truth is that if you want to know who controlled the 9/11 murders, you only need to know who controlled the media.
~~~~ #### TEN MILLION POUND CHALLENGE #### ~~~~
I will pay the above sum to anyone who can construct a scale model of one of the twin towers which will recreate the events of 911. You may use any materials you like, and any degree of complexity, subject to one exception : you may not place explosive charges at critical points throughout the structure.
The requirement is that you cause it to collapse into its own footprint (i.e. without toppling even slightly sideways) by setting fire to the top of the model.
Please post video evidence to this thread.
I’ll be waiting …
lwtc247 20 Oct, 10:25 am
Yes. Unfortunately, we don’t have that evidence. We have residue, but nothing to say where it was before the destruction. So it could have just been stored somewhere.
Good comment, thought. Unfortunately, I am short of time…
Some people still ‘believe’ that Pearl Harbor was a surprise attack and that 200,000 Japanese civilians were killed by nukes to ‘save American and Japanese lives’. The historical record shows that both of these assertions are not only false but completely absurd. Today people ‘beleive’ the official story of 911, even though it is equally false and absurd.
Residue of explosions, reports of explosions, eye witness (R.I.P.) testimony of explosions, video evidence of explosions, video evidence of squibs, Demolition experts (R.I.P.) testimony that a collapse was Controlled demolition, temperatures accessible to nanothermite explosives, freefall speed – suspension of the laws of momentum – are that evidence. Much less has been used secure convictions before, heck, even shoddy false and planted fingerprints have managed to secure murder convictions.
Constituent pats of thermite were found in the rubble but then they’re common materials which could’ve come from elsewhere:-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWpC_1WP8do&feature=player_embedded#!
“Melting point of steel” haven’t you understood that yet? After 11 years?
Kempe. I’m stumped to think of one single place where nanothermite is commionly found. Could you share your knowledge on the matter.
What exactly is you’re point about the “melting point of steel”?
Whistleblowing?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/18/martin-sheen-woody-harrelson-september-morn_n_1981559.html
I have a lot of respect for Craig. However, the above post includes errors of both fact and logic. Here are some of the more obvious:
“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.”
This is an unsupported assertion followed by an illogical conclusion. “Someone” may have objected and been ignored, overruled, reassigned, or silenced. The number of people involved is irrelevant. Both Bletchley Park and the Manhattan Project were operated under conditions of tight security and included as many as 10,000 participants. To argue that “if it was a secret I would have heard about it” is self-aggrandizement on an epic scale.
“There are some strange and dangerous people in America, but not in sufficient concentration for this one.” Unsupported assertion. Was every German (and Vichy Frenchman, etc.) involved in the Holocaust a psychopath? Obviously not. Did anyone object? Undoubtedly, but their protests were largely ineffective.
“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.”
And Craig’s point is what? If the towers were brought down by CD, then such an operation must have been executed. The fact that Craig thinks it “laughable” is irrelevant. In the months prior to 9/11 contractors made upgrades to fire-proofing and elevator systems. See: http://www.911blogger.com/news/2012-09-07/are-tall-buildings-safer-result-nist-wtc-reports. (From this same article: “In an incredible coincidence, the floors where the full fireproofing upgrades had been completed were the same floors that were struck by the aircraft on 9/11.”) Also: “A March 2001 article in Elevator World describes contemporary work on the elevator system of the Twin Towers by Ace Elevator as “one of the largest, most sophisticated elevator modernization programs in the industry’s history.”” Surely Craig will concede that such long-term projects could have been used as cover? And if CD is proven (as Newtonian physics and the forensic evidence exclusively suggest) then the point is moot.
“The forces of the aircraft impacts must have been amazingly high. I have no difficulty imagining they would bring down the building.”
The aircraft impacts did not bring down the buildings (they appeared relatively unharmed until collapse initiation) and any hypothesis that asserts that plane impacts weakened the structures sufficient to cause “progressive collapse” invokes the “pancake theory,” which is easily discredited and has been abandoned even by NIST. What Craig can imagine has no place in a sober assessment of the available evidence.
“As for WTC 7, again the kinetic energy of the collapse of the twin towers must be immense.”
Possibly, but what is Craig’s point? Is he suggesting that the collapse of the twin towers weakened WTC7? If so, this is a highly original hypothesis that has no scientific or even anecdotal support.
“Buildings I strongly suspect are very often not as strong as they are supposed to be, with contractors skimping on apparently redundant protection.”
Unsupported assertion. Is there any verifiable evidence that the twin towers or WTC7 were shoddily constructed? Musings and rumor-mongering by so-called experts do not qualify as evidence. NIST’s attempt to prove that the collapse of WTC7 was due to a single beam walking off its support as a result of heat expansion (and shoddy construction) does not survive even cursory examination.
“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.”
A sensible position, but one that Craig immediately disavows: “But was 9/11 false flag and controlled demolition? No, I think not.” Well, thanks for your opinion, Craig, but you have brought little light to the subject and demonstrated both a poor grasp of the known facts and a dismal ability to develop a logical argument.
I had hoped for better from Craig Murray, but I could say the same about Glenn Greenwald and George Monbiot, for whom I otherwise have much respect. At some point the preponderance of physical evidence is going to overpower the forces of reaction and the useful idiots who have been dutifully parroting the official fairy tale are going to have to rebrand themselves. Shadenfreude all around. But that may not be in my lifetime.
In the meantime, I invite any corrections or refutations to the points I have made, especially from Craig.
lwtc247 20 Oct, 10:25 am
Sorry, I didn’t make myself clear. The whole militant and political Islam thing emanates from Saudi Arabia (don’t they print those modified “Korans” there?), and who do the US always take on as allies for dirty/proxy war? Who fought on the ground in Afghanistan to expel the USSR? Who fought in Libya against Gaddafi’s forces? Who is being trained and coordinated from Turkey to fight against Assad’s forces in Syria? I think they were in the Balkans, too, weren’t they?
Yeah, 19 Arabs “did it”. With help at critical points. Was it “blowback”, as Craig says? Well, yes and no.
Yes. Those “allies” or former allies had to harbour a big grudge against the US, didn’t they? But what does the US do every damn time, when they have no further use for their secret, proxy-war allies? When they want to wash their hands of the atrocities committed at their behest and under their funding? They betray and abandon them, of course, and kill a lot of them. After all, they’re only Arab terrorists, eh? It’s not like they’re some country’s uniformed forces or anything, with a government to speak up for them. And there will always be plenty more militant Islamists available for the next proxy war, because the US will still be propping up the corrupt Saudi system.
And No. The help at critical points probably was wasn’t “blowback”. That was probably just money. And supporting Saudi Arabia, which “just coincidentally” churns out militant Islamists, that wasn’t “blowback”; that was, and remains, publicly documented US and Israeli policy.
The point is, if you’re the biggest arms manufacturers in the world, and if some of your major income streams come from supplying
mercenariesPrivate Military Contractors, “security”, and post-war reconstruction, creating violent chaos always makes more money for you. You support a highly unjust and repressive state that is highly effective in creating crazy extremists, and it doesn’t actually matter if those extremists fight on the same side as “your country” or against it, you still cash in.More on whistleblowing, and why it is so difficult to those involved:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/a-guide-to-the-9-11-whistleblowers/17961
[Mod/Clark: Reposted from Rarity of Whistleblowing thread.]
A Node – 20 Oct, 2012 – 11:30 am, TEN MILLION POUND CHALLENGE
“I will pay the above sum to anyone who can construct a scale model of one of the twin towers which will recreate the events of 911. You may use any materials you like, and any degree of complexity, subject to one exception : you may not place explosive charges at critical points throughout the structure.”
1. Will that be cash, cheque or PayPal?
2. By scale model, do you mean full scale? Can i make mine smaller?
3. Can i build my model as a papier mache diorama?
4. Can you please post video evidence that you have the prize money?
5. Is this another Nigerian Scam, where i have to post an administration fee to claim my prize money?
The BBC WTC7 collapse mistimed report presumably came about because the planners of the media orchestration missed out the one hour daylight saving time differential. It proves that all the orchestration was done in the US on the East Coast possibly the Pentagon. BTW-how did the 911 cessna pilot precisely target the Boeing 757 to the offices of the 44 accountants chasing Rumsfeldstein $2.3 trillion hole, in a vast Pentagon Complex that houses over 10,000 staff? A couple of thousand F18s,F16s,tanks,etc amounting to several hundred billion, all “borrowed” by the IDF, conveniently written off !
@Chris Michie
Excellent post, mate. I agree with every word.
It’s interesting that Craig says he doesn’t believe the US government or any of its agencies were responsible for 9/11. On a recent thread he said we still don’t know who killed President Kennedy which presumably means Craig disbelieves the official narrative. If so, he must believe rogue agencies within the US administration were involved in the 50 year cover-up.
For me, the collapse of WTC 7 if translated to London would be like planes crashing into Downing Street and Big Ben collapsing.
@ Chris Michie 20 Oct, 2012 – 9:27 pm
I too agree with your demolition of what is perhaps Craig’s worst post.
Some common sense thoughts on 9/11:
1. The US were desperate to invade Afghanistan and then Iraq. They were looking for a new “Pearl Harbour” and a false flag attack was I think the only way they would get their people on side.
2. Almost forty years before the US had planned a false flag attack re Cuba under the name of “Operation Northwoods”. The fact that innocent people were likely to be killed worried them not a jot. It’s to Kennedy’s eternal credit that he wouldn’t go along with it
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
3. OBL initially stated that he wasn’t behind 9/11. When fake tapes of him started appearing then suddenly he was the mastermind!
4. Highly experienced pilots on a simulator tried to reproduce some of the plane manoeuvres carried out by the “hijackers”. They found it virtually impossible. How could a hijacker, barely able to fly a Cessna, manage to fly a jet airliner anyway? They had to turn off the transponder, disconnect the autopiot and somehow horizontally and vertically navigate the planes to targets that weren’t initially in view. In the cinema it might happen, in the real world – not a chance.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iToxQVq-Lg
5. The plane that struck the south tower was way off the centre of the building with the fireball appearing in the north east corner. Yet one hour later it collapsed evenly and smoothly into its own footprint. Get real! There should have been some toppling to the side.
6. The office fires and the collapsing of the towers turned everything inside to dust apart from the steel itself. For everything to be pulverised isn’t credible.
7. At about 9 am Barry Jennings finds the Giuliani emergency bunker half way up WTC 7 abandoned. He hears an explosion from somewhere beneath him. This is long before any debris from the collapse of the north tower might have affected WTC 7. When rescued later that morning he describes the lobby in WTC 7 being totally destroyed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LLHTh_UjBc
There’s a whole lot more of course to demonstrate the lie of the official narrative of 9/11.
If Craig really does believe other “actors” could have done 9-11, I have a very hard time in understanding how he can simply leave it at that. Perhaps THE most significant event since the cold war that still reverberates (and powerfully so) in across politics in today’s world and is highly connected to Craig’s own experiences in Uzbekistan. Didn’t Chomsky and Zinn also so something like “what does it matter who did 911″ Did someone drop something in my tea shortly before these people say such things?
P.S. Yes, Chris Michie powerful comment. Lets recall one of the earler related comments on this issue by Frazer, 28 Jan, 2010 – 7:16 am. Frazer said”
“Interesting. Me and the boys kicked this idea around last night..how we, as professional explosives experts (anyone who reads this blog will know I destroy land mines and UXO’s)would rig the WTC buildings to collapse.
After a few beers at the UN club and some technical discussions on explosive type, det cord length etc, we came to this conclusion.
We would need approx 1 tonne of semtex, 2.5 miles of det cord, several hundred electronic detonators and about 2 weeks to rig it all.
We would then ‘flash’ the detonation, eg, the explosives would be detonated in sequence every 3 floors, allowing the floors above to collapse downwards in a chain reaction, therefore allowing gravity and the sheer wieght of the building to do the job by itself.
However, as the blast wave from each charge moves at over 300 meters per second, it would blow out every window and door on the floor it was set, so you would actually be able to see the detonation with the naked eye, dust,rubble and blast wind fanning out from the building. This is not the case if you watch all the news footage of the buildings collapse.
Our opinion, crashing a large jet into a skyscraper is enough to weaken the main support structure in itself. Addition of large amounts of explosives would just be overkill.”
{caveat… after a few beers}
And remember, IF WTC 1,2 and 7 were brought down, the objectives of the detonating team would be significantly different and less complicated that of a commercial one.
I posted at length on this on the original thread and I can’t really be bothered going through all that again. I’ll content myself with just a couple of points.
“Interesting. Me and the boys kicked this idea around last night..” The poster goes on to recount the enormous difficulty of performing a controlled demolition of a structure like the twin towers, the extraordinary time and resources that would be required, the esoteric skills etc. By contrast the method used to demolish the towers was simple in the extreme; create extensive damage to one or two of the topmost stories and light a few fires with paraffin. At some point the top 10% of the building will fall on the bottom 90% and completely pulverise it (although it’s more substantially built than the top, as it has to support it). The method is totally effective in a couple of hours, the materials needed are few and no special skills are required. Curiously, this wonderful new method of removing unwanted structures shows no sign of being widely adopted.
Craig Murray’s support for the official narrative seems to be based on no more than personal incredulity. This is a very common view and seems to be close to a religious feeling: ‘it doesn’t matter what the evidence is, I already have my conclusion’. This goes some way to explaining the intemperate and pejorative language used by the so-called ‘debunkers’. One is not debating a point of view, but questioning a faith. The Official Account of 9/11 is, after all, the founding scriptural text of the 21st century. God help us.
Mention any of this on the main blog and you will not get an argument, you will simply run foul of the blasphemy laws.