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 really don’t mind being deleted. The bigger issue for me is ‘why’? No answer forthcoming, must I assume the worst? More than likely, my disposition compels me to assume the worst.
But Craig is so committed to free-speech and comity. Why is it necessary to ridicule those who dare cast aspersions on your pre-determined diplomatic conclusions? You have to travel in elite circles when your entire credo is based upon that imperious model. No disrespect, but it seems to have the same flecks of bullshit one sees in relation to the pow-wows of the elite, with their insistence on Chrystal for champagne and black truffles adorning each course as an ornamental. I don’t trust these circles, and neither should any other dissident.
If I think of courageous journalist/dissidents, I think of John Reed. Now there’s a guy with balls.
Not that I worship at the altar of any man, but I have admiration for some.
Morning Ben, How is trick in you neck of the woods?
John Reed don’t know of, and will look him up, and if he is no good, I will be asking back for my electricity money!
Craig is in a tricky situation, and you should have a bit of empathy for him. I understand where he comes from, although saying that I am sure getting your posts deleted is not nice and it should leave a nasty after taste.
Further, as you are aware you sometimes look on the half empty glass (god I hate this expression and just committed that sin of mentioning it) so take it easy all is not crap, although sadly that means all is not sweet either!
‘Glass is half-empty’. Guilty as charged. I don’t think his obsession with Scot independence is the holy grail, as he seems to imply.
Nevertheless, I do understand how the internet laws in UK make his position tenuous. I just think he uses it as an excuse to sector and isolate those he disagrees with. Have a great day, Fedup.
http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtctowers.cfm
11. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)…
So WTC2 was hit first so that would give us 9 and 11 seconds
9 and 11. Seriously?
NIST are fucking liars.
Exexpat;: One could easily say that synchronicity is just another conspiracy theory.
Hi Ben
Come on mate – even if you believe the nist video footage from that day (god help you) you can perform your own timing (according to nist spec)and see these are timings are completely out.
Bonus: it had to be faq number 11 didn’t it?
Do you believe any of the video from that day?
Exexpat;
I was being snarky. Sorry it didn’t translate. WTC7 is the Hansel and Gretel ‘crumb’ to follow preceding events. Also the rather suspicious lack of CCTV (save one with the most flattering angle) around the Pentagon leaves me rather breathless. Either Craig is lazy or too busy flirting with the elites who book his speeches and co-sign his legitimacy. I should think a dissident would be all over this.
Yes agreed re the pentagon lack of video. I think childish is the right word. But they didn’t need lots of hq evidence did they? just needed to ensure (like every good woman knows) the right emotional buttons were pressed. Myself I feel that maniac Michael Aquino has a lot to answer for.
Yes I too get a little disappointed re craig and 911. However I think I understand why he needs to stay in denial. It may also be strategic in terms of his future. At least he has written re the whole OBL nonsense. Would be nice to try to debate him on this issue though 🙂
Has he ever written anything about PSYOPS or such?
“Would be nice to try to debate him on this issue though”
Sorry. I find his lack of dialogue with commenters reveals his disdain for his audience. He is far above ‘debate’ with any of us.
His only comments reflect a self-serving and loquacious position, as when someone says something that augers his pre-determined pov.
You lot should wise up. How many brilliant young undergraduate and post-grad mathematics. physics and structural engineering students do you think there are worldwide? If it were possible to prove that the collapses couldn’t have happened without some additional assistance, don’t you think one of them would have done it by now? There have been at least twelve graduations at every university in the world since 9/11. And if you prove demolition, does that tell you who the perpetrators were? You are barking up the wrong tree! Why on Earth would Craig join in? What a waste of his time that would be.
You’re looking at the wrong end of the crime. You need to find a paper trail, which will contain identifying evidence; you know – names. Which you don’t find in rubble and twisted girders. Craig knows how to do this, and he does it. He writes to government departments, he publishes documents, he makes Freedom of Information requests. Look at how he exposed the Fox- Werrity- Atlantic Bridge business. He went for that because he knew that he knew where to look and what to ask. And yes, I did mean to repeat like that – “he knew that he knew” – his understanding of the significance (and the limitations) of his own knowledge is a vital part of his abilities.
Read Craig’s original post again. He only ruled out 9/11 being a direct US operation, along with “false flag and controlled demolition”. Well 9/11 can’t be called “false flag”. Think about what “false flag” means; it’s when one country does something while disguised as another. But Al Qaeda is not a country and flies no flag. The US say it was Saudi hijackers, but they don’t flag 9/11 as Saudi. In fact, they redact all those important bits from the 9/11 Commission Report. Legal cases emerge but get suppressed; look them up, or ask Ellsberg. The US was hit by its own allies, so 9/11 seems more “hidden and downplayed flag” than “false flag”. Yes, it was blowback. Yes it was convergence of interests. As Craig wrote:
Go on, read it again. Look at how radical it really is. Ask yourselves how you missed it before. Craig did not endorse the official story. He just didn’t say what you wanted to hear about collapsing buildings.
So far as controlled demolition is concerned, I can’t imagine a man who’d be less interested in explosions and such than Craig. His primary interest is people, from individuals and their motivations, through social and cultural groups and nations to humanity as a whole and what it means to be human. When matters of technology arise, Craig usually asks someone else, which often saves him from breaking something. Blog software, bar pumps, spirit-optics and corkscrews he can handle, but they are all means to the end of knowing people, see? Torture and high explosives are of no interest to him, because neither help elicit the truth. So when it came to thermite and demolition, he just asked a friend. But we’ve already been here – Craig would be totally unsuited to finding clues to the perpetrators in the manner of collapse or the wreckage of the buildings. So why debate him about that?
Unless he’s deliberately hiding personal knowledge, Craig knows that he doesn’t have anything on anyone who contributed to 9/11. If he did, I’m sure he’d leak it. He exposed Jack Straw, Alisher Usmanov and Werrity. He knew that he was in a position to do so. He’s a whistleblower, or a grass or a sneak if you’re a criminal or a sulky kid, or an historian or a witness or a reporter. What do you think Craig has to tell you about 9/11 that he’s holding back? Anything specific to Craig, ie. something you couldn’t read elsewhere? If not, why do you want to discuss this with him? Do you hope to convince him, maybe? If so, is your structural engineering really good enough?
So who respects the recently deceased Mike Ruppert, then? What had he to say about collapsing buildings? Anyone read Crossing the Rubicon? Fancy doing some research?
Here, just for a treat; this is my own whacky suggestion about 9/11. So far as I know, I made this up myself.
The aircraft impacts were just the final straw. For years, fake mail order accounts had been sending regular deliveries of heavy objects – car and truck batteries, packets of fishing weights, uninterruptable power supplies, whatever – to rooms near the tops of the buildings, also hired by false accounts. Bit by bit over the years the weight increased, until 9/11… The molten metal reported in the basement level wreckage was from all that lead, some of which was melted by the fires.
If you can find records of those false accounts and work out who placed those orders you might catch a conspirator.
Clark; Any cover story has weak spots. Controlled demolition is just one idea, and it can be debated until St Swithin’s day without a satisfactory answer to all sides.
There are many events which have mysterious tangents arising from a lack of information, and 9/11 is just one of them, though archetypal and with more loss of life.
We just want to be able to discuss without all these narrowly defined topics, whose path of discussion must be trod without extra-curricular tangents or a paddling will ensue.
You don’t have to be an engineer to sort out the big picture. It’s like a scientific hypothesis. Many times the search for evidence and conclusions begins with a suspicion. Displaying some common sense and a little cynicism, not just for the wild theories, but for those who don’t wish to even broach the subjects, would assist the discussion, Maybe it would even lead to a consensus that results in a proactive strategy. Who knows?
THIS is an example of the silliness….
http://www.buzzfeed.com/emilyorley/paramount-deletes-controversial-911-teenage-mutant-ninja-tur
Personally, I don’t see any problem with buildings falling down – it took thousands of years of development to learn how to make them stay up.
RobG, from here:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2015/12/coe-better-protected-than-blatter-by-corrupt-national-authorities/comment-page-18/#comment-572393
You only have to watch some of the videos to see that the towers collapsed SLOWER than free-fall; you can easily see debris from above overtaking the collapse-front on the way down.
Yes, the buildings were state-of-the-art when they were built, to provide as much working space on the smallest footprint possible. Staff need floorspace to work, they can’t work embedded in a wall or other structural member, so the buildings were constructed with as little steel and concrete as possible.
Despite claims to the contrary, the towers did not “fall into their own footprints” (though Building 7 pretty much did). There are stunning aerial photographs of the aftermath which show that the wreckage covered three or four times the surface area of the original buildings. Remembering also that the buildings were designed to enclose as much empty space with as little material as possible, the piles of rubble look about right to me.
At the time of building the towers were the most ambitious structures ever designed and built by commercial organisations. As the commercial imperative is to maximise productivity by minimising all other costs, we should not be surprised that the twin towers exhibited less resilience to damage than the construction company originally claimed.
OK how about we break this huge operation down into separate parts?
I’ll start.
NIST Report – shown as complete bullshit with one sentence:
“11. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)—speeds…”
http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtctowers.cfm
If you believe the towers fell for 9 and 11 seconds then you will believe anything.
Please don’t ignore this – debate or debunk 🙂
Exexpat: I looked at that youtube of yours which claimed the falling bodies were pixels, and didn’t find it convincing at all. They are pretty clearly live bodies which are falling. There have been quite good hi-res stills of those poor devils on their way down.
Let’s see if I can remember these, for uniform acceleration…
v=u+at
v squared = u squared + 2as
s=ut+ half a(t squared)
That last one’s the one. Nine seconds? That gives us 9 times 9 times 9.81 divided by 2 = nearly four hundred metre…
How high was the buckle point on WTC2?
Or is it:
s=(ut + half at)squared
? If it’s the latter it gives (half of 9 times 9.81) squared = nearly two kilometre, which can’t be right because it wouldn’t be remotely contentious…
It’s s=ut + 0.5 x a t^2
Remembered that just fine from school 🙂
Exexpat, look, where does it get you even if you do prove that the aircraft damage couldn’t have caused the collapses? Who does it get into court and how?
I looked at this lot for years and years, and try as I might I couldn’t rule out that the towers just collapsed due to damage. Then I discovered that about half of the 9/11 Commission Report was based upon confessions extracted under torture, that more torture was ordered until the wanted confessions were obtained, that its most important findings were kept secret, and that most of the public have never heard these three facts – though they’ve all heard of controlled demolition theories etc. And after that, all the arguments about collapsing buildings started looking like a very effective distraction.
Glenn, thanks, so my 6:25 pm estimate is the one. So so long as the WTC2 buckle point was appreciably lower than 400m, we’re within the realms of physical possibility without explosives, right?
Clark,
Thanks for responding. Let’s keep it on the NIST report for now if we may? I myself too have spent 1000’s of hours on this particular operation – so I appreciate your patience with me.
Do you agree NIST report is bullshit – yes or no?
What are the odds of those towers falling in 9 and 11 seconds?
Thanks
Glenn
Lets agree to disagree re the poor pixels.
What about the nosed out video? I think this clearly shows CGI – what say you?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5-xcvv_fRQ
Cheers
Exexpat, I haven’t read the NIST reports because I began from the other end. I saw various assertions that the towers couldn’t have fallen as witnessed without some postulated assistance. I examined these and found all of them to be inconclusive – some of them were just nonsense.
As to whether the NIST report is “bullshit”, that depends upon what you mean. As best I recall, NIST had to issue a second statement regarding the collapses of the towers due to challenges from members of the 9/11 Truth Movement, and refused to publish the details of their computer simulation of the collapse of Building Seven. The former could be due to shoddy public statements. The latter looks like a cover-up, but that doesn’t tell us what was being covered up.
But no, I wouldn’t expect the final NIST reports to be simple bullshit. Rather, it they’re covering something up, I’d expect the reports to be carefully crafted to be plausible to engineers, architects and other relevant specialists.
I have little idea what the odds are of a given building collapsing at any given rate. However, I think that if it were to collapse completely, it would have to do so pretty quickly. If the collapse-front had been significantly slowed by the remaining structure the collapses wouldn’t have completed at all. But the odds of various outcomes? Sorry, not my field.
Regarding your “nosed out” video, a good friend of mine told me that he has a friend living in New York who witnessed one of the aircraft impacts with his own eyes. I’ve no reason to suspect deception.
9/11 needs to be investigated properly. The 9/11 Commission Report is about half based on confessions extracted under torture. Since torture is well known to produce false confessions, this single, recorded, utterly verifiable fact invalidates the 9/11 commission report.
Thanks again for response(s) Clark.
I think you are missing the point…. NIST is stating that the towers fell in 9 and 11 seconds… what are the odds of that being the same date or name of the operation? Seriously? This is ridiculous. Its as good as impossible. Not only are they bullshitting… they are taking the piss. Can you not see that?
Re your friend of a friend…. where was he/she located when they saw the plane impact? Which impact?
And I saw that “nose out” shot broadcast both live and later that evening with my own eyes…. So a plane’s nose can survive going through a building like that? The weakest part of the plane… again they are taking the piss.
Not only is it poor CGI it’s cartoon CGI – plane shaped holes where the plane went in? Seriously?
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-UveiYKMVUh8/VM_1eVqWf9I/AAAAAAAAD_I/IrUlfnKX-CI/s1600/9%3A11%2BRoadrunner%2Bhole%2B2.jpg
Exexpat, you’re right, I had missed the point you were making. But that doesn’t seem so a great coincidence; the towers were about 416m high, so free-fall time from the top to the ground was just over 9 seconds, as I calculated above, and collapse times (for collapses that would complete at all) would be slightly longer than that, as they were – you can’t pin a “guilty” label on NIST for reporting the collapse times roughly as measured.
As I remember, my friend’s friend watched events unfold from his apartment, not particularly close but direct line of sight. I don’t remember which impact but probably the second, for obvious reasons. I could contact my friend, but his friend probably got heartily sick of answering questions about this…