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 think David Kelly was murdered. I don’t think JFK or MLK were murdered by loners. I think the CIA, possibly through Blackwater, probably had a hand in the Tashkent “bombs” of 2003/4. I helped blow the whistle on extraordinary rendition and torture – that’s one hell of a secret conspiracy.
I am not scared at all to take on the “Establishment” line. But I think about 9/11 precisely what I have posted about 9/11.
Craig,
Do you feel like you’ve read enough to state without equivocation that JFK and MLK were killed not by loners? Have you read the books that answer every single one of the so-called “anomalies.”
Is your belief that David Kelly was murdered on the same level as your belief that JFK was murdered by someone other than a loner?
We’re supposed to believe that highly paid law graduates from “one of the best law schools in the USA” go around foreign blogs yelling
“BWWWAAAHHHAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!”
Please … Larry sounds more like a teenager.
————————————-
“It would just need too many people to be involved. Someone would have objected.”–Craig
This is my biggest problem with believing it was an inside job – despite the fact that I agree that there are strings of holes in the official story.
Why no film has been released from so many cameras around the Pentagon is a mystery to me.
I saw two grainy bits that (I think) came from only two cameras. I saw no plane. One assumes that anything to do with national security goes on inside the building and not outside on the footpaths or green spaces, or indeed the lamp-posts. If the plane was caught on camera, they need only release a small piece of footage. So where is it? And why was the hole in the wall so small? And if the wings were sheared off, where are they in the aftermath pics? And the engines that should be with them?
But an ‘inside job’ would appear to mean an awful lot of people prepared to mass murder Americans (and others), and sworn to some secrecy agreement afterwards. And that’s where I come unstuck. Is anyone aware of a site where an estimate has been made of the number that would have had to be involved, and who kept their mouths shut ever since? That would be interesting.
And Larry, the plural of silly goose is not silly gooses.
“I saw the impact and its net result, after the fuel had burned off in the fireball. A small-scale localised fire. Nothing controversial there. We’ve all seen the pictures.”
Fair enough but I suggest you go to the optician and have your eyesight tested because the fireball I saw was around fifteen storeys in diameter which is about 50 metres and subsequent fire didn’t seem small scale.
If that is all you have left to say, a small localised fire, then you are an idiot and I won’t bother to continue as it is clear you can’t listen to facts that don’t suit you view.
“Just a rehash of thoroughly debunked claims”–Larry
As a lawyer, Larry, you won’t mind me pointing out that that is about the sixth or seventh time you’ve talked on this blog about something being “thoroughly debunked” without pointing us in the direction of the debunking.
chris: you appear to have missed the “after the fuel had burned off in the fireball” bit. I’m talking about what was left after the fireball – geddit?
“The Assassination of John F. Kennedy”…
http://tinyurl.com/zxnjr
“Dorothy Kilgallen”…
tinyurl.com/ra962
“BWWWAAAHHHAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!”
Yes, he does that a lot. I wonder whether he types it out each time, or has it in a little text file on his desktop so he can copy and paste as required.
Larry –
No. There are better books to read and only one life to live.
“I think that” is not in the least an unequivocal statement of fact. It is actually the opposite.
Craig,
As to JFK:
I’m sure you’re familiar with Vincent Bugliosi; I recommend his book on the subject: Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy
(reclaiminghistory.com).
I’ll assume he’s got solid bona fides with you, as he wrote http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Prosecution_of_George_W._Bush_for_Murder
Craig, it’s just a bit disturbing that you would declare, positively and without question, that JFK was not killed by a loner. It does shed some light onto your belief that David Kelly was murdered.
Merkin:
“What is factual is that WT7 collapsed for no apparent reason – not even a plane crashing into it for a fig leaf.”
The disparity between NIST’s analysis and the observed events are even more pronounced when it comes to Building 7. Is it possible for a steel-frame hi-rise to collapse in a textbook controlled demolition fashion and yet not be a controlled demolition?
Being a US government body, no one need feign surprise that NIST’s answer was ‘yes’. However, if such a thing were possible, their models of the collapse should closely, if not exactly, match the actual observed collapse. Despite more than 7 years of study and a sizeable budget, they do nothing of the sort.
If NIST claim something is possible, but then fail to demonstrate said claim, despite plentiful time and resources, the only logical conclusion to be reached is that that claim is false.
“And Larry, the plural of silly goose is not silly gooses.”
Steven Pinker would disagree. Not that he matters or it matters; language can change.
dreoilin,
Every silly goose claim on this thread was answered years ago.
You apparently have questions about the Pentagon. Here are answers:
http://debunk911myths.org/topics/Pentagon
Will you read through this link? Promise me you’ll read through this link, OK?
frank verismo, do you think there was ANY truther who said, when the NIST report on WTC 7 came out, “Well, looks like I was wrong”? No, there wasn’t.
this is a religion to you people.
There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding about how elites operate.It is pathetically naive to assume that elites have our best interests at heart.This is emphatically not the case.
Anglo-American elites have traded arms,narcotics,and slaves (black and white)over centuries.They have run revolutions,subversion,wars and revolutions.In concert with organized crime and fifth column networks established centuries ago these elites see eugenics and scientific dictatorship as the best means to continue their domination and maintain their real estate assets.
Without some historical understanding of how the British Royal-Rothschild Empire drug cartels and attendant Hofjuden-financed intelligence and offshore banking networks operate 9/11 will remain an unsolved crime.
Check out this ground-breaking study from 1978.As true now as it was then.
Read Dope Inc
http://www.freedrive.com/file/304835,dope-inc—britain-usa-drug-trade–war.p
frank verismo, as to Building 7, please read this:
http://debunk911myths.org/topics/7_World_Trade_Center
By the way, folks, you can always read more or ask questions at
http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=64
“Will you read through this link?”
I’ve read it Larry. Pretty thin isn’t it?
Firstly, the pictures of odd pieces of debris make the sceptics’ case really. The question is: where’s the vast hulk of a passenger jet?
Secondly, the “impact” photo is shrouded in smoke. Why didn’t they show instead one of the photos clearly showing the the scorched window through the plane apparently flew?
Thirdly, the pictures of victims’ remains are most likely to those of Pentagon staff.
Fourthly, it’s a little disingenuous to cite Barbara Olson’s alleged phonecall when even the FBI concedes it didn’t happen.
Fifthly, none of the security camera frames show a plane.
Do you really find this stuff convincing?
passenger jet pics:
3rd and 4th picture of the second column here:
http://debunk911myths.org/topics/Pentagon_debris
Of course the plane is not intact – it crashed.
Look at this picture of the ValuJet crash – WHERE IS THE PLANE! OH NO! CONSPIRACY!
http://www.cnn.com/EVENTS/1996/year.in.review/us/valujet/valujet.html
“Thirdly, the pictures of victims’ remains are most likely to those of Pentagon staff.”
You understand how DNA identification works, right? Someone here previously needed some elementary knowledge; not sure if it was you.
Larry
It really isn’t difficult. There is some stuff I know, like that Jack Straw was lying to the Iraq Inquiry, because I was an eye-witness to events. That goes for most of the torture extraordinary rendition stuff I do.
I always make it plain when I am claiming privileged or first hand knowledge.
When I am not, I make no claim my view is any more valid than your view. This blog makes no claim to infallibility.
On JFK I have an opinion on an intelligent assessment of articles or documentaries I have seen so far, and like most people I’ve seen them on both sides. But I don’t in any way claim superior authority to you on that subject. I just mentioned it as an example to disprove the notion that I am scared to admit to a non-establishment view.
We all have opinions on numerous subjects based on our state of knowledge to date. There’s nothing strange about it.
Larry:
“do you think there was ANY truther who said, when the NIST report on WTC 7 came out, “Well, looks like I was wrong”? No, there wasn’t.”
Quite. For the very reasons I outlined. NIST’s modeling bears no resemblance to the actual, observed events.
“You understand how DNA identification works, right?”
Frankly Larry, I’ve always been a little suspicious of the Pentagon’s claim that it found DNA of all the passengers, particularly since the analyses were conducted ‘in house’ rather than by civil authorities.
I have a present for the truthers here that you will not find in any truther site.
Because this is from my own knowledge and research, which unlike is being carried out in a University’s Engineering Labs and not at 5th grade. I work with composite Structures.
Composite structures fail in two phases, because two different Materials(or more) are used, each with its own maximum stress and strain levels.
What this means to you peasants is if you have something made out of one material, like a stone bridge, and you put a great big thing on it, heavier than what it can take, it will break at once. And the something goes for a bridge made of steel.
But if you take a bridge or building made from a composite of two materials, like lets say a building made from steel and concrete, and place a stress which causes a strain greater then what it can take, the brittle phase will fail first followed by the ductile phase.
What that means is the fire and impact, if it did cause it would have caused the concrete to start breaking off first, and then the steel.
To require a composite structure to fail as a single phase, a weak point will have to be created. Sort of like the fuse in an electrical circuit, If a the building had a couple of floors weakened, beams cut etc. The weakening effects of the impact and the fire could cause it to fail at that location. Materials Engineers use this, when we test materials we cut a little notch to cause failure at a set location.
I am not a truther though. I think I am undecided on the issue, because I have read both sides and I am still unconvinced. I think, like most things, the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle of a poler debate.
People probably did attempt to do what happened, and the people who are paid to stop it happening found out about it and decided to facilitate it happening. I am not stating this as fact. Just as a thought. But what I wrote about how two phase structures fail is fact. It is up to you lot to debate whether it is a relevant fact or an irrelevant fact.
MJ, just to be sure who you’re accusing of mass murder:
http://www.dcmilitary.com/dcmilitary_archives/stories/112901/12279-1.shtml
Perhaps the key point to the entire implausibility of the ‘pancake collapse’ theory is considering a very old law – conservation of momentum.
Conservation of momentum comes from Newton’s first law. A body will remain at rest or travel in uniform motion in a straight line unless acted upon by another force.
Consider the initial collapse of the top sections, which in each case would have the lightest top portion of the building, being the thinnest part of the core. We are expected to believe that as it suddenly (with a flash) lost all its structure and fell onto the floor below, the combined weight of the section above the disintegrated floor lands on the floor below. That causes the floor below to collapse under the strain, and the entire new mass falls onto the next floor. This progression continues neatly all the way down.
That’s fine, apart from one very important detail – how does each new floor suddenly assume the accumulated velocity of the falling floors above? We’re talking about a progressively heavy core structure (it having been built to bear the weight of the entire structure above, at each stage). So why did it not _substantially_ arrest the downward motion?
As Frank Verismo points out, a great deal of the mass was pulverised in any case, so the full weight of the above sections were dispersed each time a new floor was reached by the downward progression.
How did the really heavy mid to lower sections suddenly start moving at the same pace as the falling upper sections, unless they were offering _virtually no resistance at all_ – unless they were already falling themselves immediately before the progression hit them.
The towers did not come down quite at free-fall speed, but it was not far off it. It was way too close to free-fall acceleration to believe even for a moment than a substantial structure of increasing strength was being crushed by the powdered remains of the floors above.
*
If the motion was entirely downwards, with no other force than downward gravity operating after collapse was initiated, why do we see massive steel girders ejected out laterally for hundreds of feet? Why did tiny body parts (sections of finger, etc.) appear on rooftops hundreds of yards away?
In standard building collapses, one would find at least a few things intact. A chair, a monitor, something. How come the biggest items found were fragments of telephone keypads?
Look at the column on the last picture on this page: How did it acquire that precise cut, consistent with a controlled demolition?
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/thermite.htm
*
But back to conservation of momentum. Inertia dictates that a mass will not suddenly assume the velocity of the moving object falling onto it, even if it is so tenuously structured that a feather falling onto it would initiate its collapse. In this case, we are talking about an increasing substantial structure the further down the building we go. Yet it offered little more resistance than fresh air on the day of 9/11.
I looked at your link, Larry:
http://debunk911myths.org/topics/7_World_Trade_Center
It did precisely nothing to address the issues I raised. Furthermore, under the title ‘Damage to 7 World Trade Center’ are several images of the wrong building. WTC7 can be seen in the extreme background.
Try not to completely waste my time again.
Glenn,
If you think thermite causes precise cuts, then you’re a moron and you can’t be helped.
Thermite.
Precise cuts.
Really?
Debunked by a child.
Moron.
frank verismo, a structural engineer would laugh at you.