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).
You’re being disingenuous Node. You know as well as I that there is no shortage of conspiracy theorists who still pushing the claim that the WTC wouldn’t have collapsed unless the steel had reached melting point. Here is just one:-
http://911review.com/articles/jm/mslp_1.htm
The failure of the Troof movement to agree on a single alternative hypothesis is of course a major weakness for them but a source of some amusement for the rest of us. How do you stand on the “mini-nuke” or the “death ray” hypothesis?
The problems with the thermite hypothesis is that to begin with thermite is an incendiary and not an explosive. I’t not used in demolition work so why would the NWO/lizards whoever risk what would essentially be an experiment on such an important project. It wouldn’t produce the effect of “squibs” claimed it all burns very fast, together with the high thermal conductivity of steel it means that a vast quantity would be required to produce the amount of molten steel claimed to have been seen.
As for the Verinage there are clearly clouds of dust ejected in each of the clips, dust which at the WTC is claimed to be smoke from explosives. Once initiated the collapses also progress very quickly which again contradicts the claims of the conspiracists regarding the resistance the undamaged sections of the building should provide which is a key piece of evidence presented as proof of conspiracy. The fact that the buildings are of different construction is irrelevant. They all obey the same laws of physics.
Kempe thanks for the link. Most of the collapses on that video look similar ie take out a floor fairly high up and then the floors above fall down. I don’t know if there are other explosions lower down, but the take out a high floor pattern is clear.
On WTC 1st tower to go is so Smokey I can’t see enough. On 2nd tower you can see a high floor really light up before the collapse, but it doesn’t clearly resemble the pattern on your video. On WTC7 you can see upper floors v clearly and it doesn’t look like an upper floor is taken out.
Looking at a video of demolitions, which have gone wrong it would appear that an upper floor take out is far from the norm and that some demolitions must involve lower floor explosions. If you were going to covertly demolish a building the upper floor take out would seem a bad move because as your video shows its v obvious.
One observation from the video of top 10 demolitions gone wrong is how easy it is to screw up even when it is controlled so that they fall to the side or comically come to a halt. Are there any videos of buildings collapsing, which are not controlled explosions ie accidents or war?
You’re being disingenuous Node. You know as well as I that there is no shortage of conspiracy theorists who still pushing the claim that the WTC wouldn’t have collapsed unless the steel had reached melting point.
You’re being disingenuous by choosing/pretending to believe that a fringe with unrealistic theories represents the whole truther movement.
The failure of the Troof movement to agree on a single alternative hypothesis is of course a major weakness for them but a source of some amusement for the rest of us. How do you stand on the “mini-nuke” or the “death ray” hypothesis?
There are many different hypotheses because people like yourself spend a lot of time muddying the water, for example by promoting the lunatic fringe ones as you did in the above quote. If you were really confident that the official explanation could stand up to scrutiny, you would address the arguments put forward by the likes of “Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth”. The fact that you’d rather talk about death-ray ‘troofers’ is quite revealing.
To save a lot of time, let me say here and now that I don’t know how those towers were made to fall. Thermite? Thermate? Nano-thermite? Military high explosives? Conventional demolition charges? Secret technology/chemistry? Some combination of the foregoing? If I had to guess I would go for some variety based on thermite.
I’ve explained previously why I believe the collapses were controlled demolitions. How about you giving me your explanation now. Are you claiming that those vérinage videos are examples of what happened to the three towers? If so, please address my points about WTC7 free falling while the vérinage ones don’t, and also the improbability of random fires creating the precise conditions normally only created by highly paid demolition experts. If not, why did you introduce those red herrings, and what is your theory?
Kempe :The fact that the buildings are of different construction is irrelevant.
Ha ha, I almost missed that one.
Oh god.
Node, Kempe, your argument has polarised. The pair of you have voluntarily taken sides and now you’re enjoying slagging each other off. This is all these demolition or not arguments EVER achieve. They ALL break down to “You’re a spook”, “No, you’re a troofer”.
I’m bored.
Can you both agree that the response to this was to torture more than nineteen Arabs?
Chomsky is clever.
No wonder he refuses to get involved.
Clark
If all you can see in my last 4/5 comments is me slagging Kempe off, then that’s all you’re looking for.
Oh well just let them torture their terror suspects then. Not half as important as whether an evacuated building was demolished or just collapsed.
Node, you wrote:
Sorry, what does this reveal? What are you implying it to reveal? Something about Kempe, yes? Come on, spell it out.
Node, please pardon my frustration. You’re generally very good at addressing the issues and keeping from personal spats with other commenters, but in this case I feel you’ve let your standards slip.
There are still people such as myself, wondering about matters like those in my comment of 20 Jan, 3:55 pm.
Kempe, you could be more helpful, too.
It seems clear to me that NIST covered something up; Kempe, would you agree? I am careful not to assume that they’re covering up “controlled demolition”.
That’s the thing with cover-ups; you can’t always tell what is being covered up. That’s often the point of it.
Clark : Sorry, what does this reveal? What are you implying it to reveal? Something about Kempe, yes? Come on, spell it out.
Where Kempe tries to steer the conversation REVEALS that his motivation is not honest debate. His efforts are directed to ridiculing the 911 Truth movement rather than challenging it. Read my post he was replying to. He ignored 2 physics-based reasons I gave refuting the vérinage technique, lamely dismissed a 3rd with “The fact that the buildings are of different construction is irrelevant (what?!), introduced a straw man in the form of thermite which I had never mentioned, then asked me if I believed in death-rays.
He posted a link to a so-called 911 debunker (blacksmith). It contained irrelevant information and made false associations – it was confusing misinformation. Why did he post it? When I quoted a refutation, he didn’t defend the blacksmith or even mention it again. Then he introduced the demolition technique of vérinage. When I proved it wasn’t applicable to the WTC collapses, he changed the subject to thermite and molten steel rather than defend vérinage. I have to ask myself whether he introduces these ideas in good faith. Certainly they are muddying the water for those trying to see through the 911 murk. I don’t know what motivates him but I base my mistrust on more than the experiences of this thread.
But here I am justifying my actions to you. I raised many substantive points in those last few comments and all you have taken issue with is the manner in which I delivered them. I don’t think you have any right to demand of me to “Come on, spell it out”, but I have done so out of respect for you. Now please respect me. You do it your way, Clark, and let me do it my way.
Node, basically, you’re asserting that Kempe is part of a conspiracy. You’re saying that he knows that the WTC buildings were rigged to collapse in some way, and he’s helping to keep that a secret.
So, by the same argument, I know that US astronauts never landed on the Moon, and I’m helping to keep that a secret. Even though I was only six in 1969.
Node, I’m going to apply Occam’s razor. There is an aspect of human nature that causes people to take sides and dispute the integrity of their opponents rather than addressing the issues; we see it on thread after thread, when John Goss and Resident Dissident get into their “You’re supporting fascists” – “You’re a Putinista” row, when RobG wants everyone who sees global warming as the cause of Pacific storms rather than the Fukushima disaster “put against a wall and shot”, when… I hope you recognise what I’m describing here.
Occam’s razor tells me that this is a far more likely explanation of Kempe’s behaviour than that he’s knowingly covering up for – for what? An insurance scam?
Node, basically, you’re asserting that Kempe is part of a conspiracy.
No I’m not, I said I don’t know what his motivation is. I rule nothing in and nothing out.
Now leave it, Clark, I’m not answerable to you. If you want to talk about 911, fine, but I’m not responding to any more unsolicited instructions on blog decorum.
Ruling some things out would at least provide a way to proceed. So would ruling some things in.
I’ve ruled in “confessions extracted under torture”. That, it seems, was too much for Exexpat, though I can’t think why. Maybe everyone’s on the opposite “side” from how it seems. Screwy. Cognitive dissonance? Surely everyone accepts that Guantanamo Bay was about torture, but he can’t believe they’d torture for confessions about 9/11?
Personally, I’ve ruled out explosives, thermite etc. for the Twin Towers.
Lots of people claim that physics rules out the official explanations for the collapses. Others go further and claim that physics rules out any gravity-driven collapse mechanism.
However, I haven’t seen similar arguments from physics applied to explosive- or incendiary-assisted collapse mechanisms.
Presumably, the explanation for this disparity lies in human psychology.
For the Twin Towers, this argument can be ruled out…
…I could go on, but I can’t be bothered. I don’t see any sign that anyone but me wants to consistently apply reason in this matter. Everyone’s already taken a position, and they only apply reason when doing so supports that position. So there is no point in me pursuing it further, because even if I come up with a 100% watertight case, no one is going to take any notice except possibly to claim it if it happens to support their preconceived position, and even if it does get claimed, it’ll sit there alongside a load of non reason-based arguments like one genuine note mislaid in a wallet full of counterfeits.
http://breakfornews.com/9i/oie_animation.gif
The only winning move is not to play….
But carry on driving yourself mad with cartoon physics 🙂
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-UveiYKMVUh8/VM_1eVqWf9I/AAAAAAAAD_I/IrUlfnKX-CI/s1600/9%3A11%2BRoadrunner%2Bhole%2B2.jpg
Exexpat, Node, Kempe; is there any aspect of 9/11 you have any interest in, any questions about, except for how the buildings collapsed?
Exexpat, I find it hard to believe that you take this matter seriously. Your primary piece of “evidence” is that NIST must have been taking the piss, because the collapse times they gave were 9 and 11 seconds.
Consider if similar evidence was presented against you in a prosecution. That a murder was committed on 25th of March, and when being interviewed by police you’d said that it had taken you 25 minutes to get to the station and another 3 minutes waiting to buy a ticket – Proof positive, m’lud, the accused is taking the piss.
Clark,
It’s pointless to try to debate with you as your mind is already made up.
Anyone else who hasn’t made the assumption the video from that day is real and wants answers: visit http://www.cluesforum.info or watch SEPTEMBER CLUES 9/11 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gORu-68SHpE
Have a nice evening all 🙂
Exexpat, that’s crap. I seem to be the only one here who’s mind ISN’T made up. I haven’t even begun to discuss Building 7 (NOTE my disclaimer) because I’ve had no intelligent replies to the points I’ve already raised.
I’ve made up my mind about cluesforum.info though – it’s crap. How many pixels were those two image fragments they claimed to be identical? Forty or less? Remember, humans can see faces in clouds; I suppose that proves there are angels up there.
There were 59 words consisting of 260 characters in your previous comment. You obviously own an Abus Granit Extreme shackle lock.
Exexpat, I’m sorry I got angry, but to be told I’ve already made up my mind is a gross insult. If you remember my earlier comments, I’ve already stated that I consider a proper investigation necessary because of the confessions extracted under torture.
It’s YOU that has already made your mind up, and you’re projecting that onto me. My classical physics is pretty good – if you think you know better, engage with the momentum argument I presented earlier. You seem to have missed most of what I’ve written.
Can anyone point me to an assessment or estimate of the quantity and consistency of molten metal found beneath the three collapsed buildings?
Eyewitness accounts of “molten steel” should be read as “molten metal”. Maybe experts can tell if molten metal is specifically steel just by looking, but non-experts probably can’t.
Here’s someone who writes a lot of sense about 9/11. Quoting the professional magazine Fire Safety:
http://www.nafeezahmed.com/2015/08/911-conspiracy-theory-and-bullshit.html
Exexpat; warning – you’re not going to like the rest of the article, and it’ll force you to add a whole load more conspirators to your theory.
But I guess I’m alone on this thread now, because I’m the only one left who keeps an open mind.
Clark: “Exexpat, I’m sorry I got angry, but to be told I’ve already made up my mind is a gross insult.”
Yes, I agree. But…
Clark: “… I’m the only one left who keeps an open mind.”
So why do you accuse everyone (apart from yourself) of having closed minds? Isn’t that a bit insulting too?
Glenn, maybe I’m wrong and others do keep open minds. I’ve raised a lot of points that no one seems to want to discuss, but maybe I’ve formed a wrong impression. Everyone is still free to display their open-mindedness if they wish.