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).
Infamous Nose-out shot featured in NOSED-OUT >>>
video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5-xcvv_fRQ
Exexpat, no. Some weird website asserts that that is what a few clips of video seem to show. But we’re discussing a few grainy pixels chosen from quite a number of frames; I already went through the number of matches that could have been compared.
So some tiny piece cut out of one video frame looks roughly like another tiny piece cut out of another video frame. I do not find this convincing of anything much, except that video is a rather low-resolution medium.
Look, you yourself pointed out that humans are very susceptible to suggestion. That video suggested that idea to you. Why don’t you subject that suggestion to rigorous scrutiny, too?
“Exexpat said it; “the only way to win is not to play”. Do you suppose Exexpat has insider knowledge and is taking the piss, you know, like NIST did with 9 seconds and 11 seconds? You a spook, Exexpat? Only joking. No, it really is best not to play. Mike Ruppert did warn us about this years ago…”
For the benefit of context for other readers when I wrote “the only way to win is not to play” means to not play the game of cartoon physics – a very popular game that the reader may see for themselves – played on this very page and numerous others across this now 22 page long thread.
In fact if you removed the cartoon physics posts it might still be in single digits 🙂
Exexpat, here; reposted from my comment 9 Jan, 6:08 pm. 9 January, Exexpat. You’ve had nearly three weeks to address this, but haven’t done so. I’m doing all the work…
Exexpat, 10:39 am; there’s nothing wrong with rough first approximations in physics. My rough calculations above seem to show that the collapses of the Twin Towers could have proceeded as seen without requiring explosives.
Exexpat, you should also note that my physics is considerably less cartoon-like than that of the people I’m arguing against. I do actually use numbers, maths and well-established physical formulae.
Clark
I didn’t realise you were in a hurry here? Why is that?
I haven’t responded to your above post because
– You were rude and quite angry in your posts (you have admitted the anger)
– you haven’t responded to some of my questions too
– I have been busy in real life
– Reconsidered if it was a good use of my time
– Feels a bit pointless sometimes as it’s like debating with a lawyer or a politician? You twist my words sometimes and seem unable to answer yes or no to questions that only require it? (and you say you’re doing all the work lol) Is it called verbiage?
In the meantime If you’re not busy then perhaps you could scroll back and answer my unanswered questions?
I’m happy to debate at a steady pace – and very happy to continue to post the critical analysis of media fakery from that day so that readers may judge for themselves.
Cheers 🙂
“Exexpat, you should also note that my physics is considerably less cartoon-like than that of the people I’m arguing against.”
ad hominem.
Exexpat, I’m not in a hurry, but I have been somewhat rushed because I’m arguing against three other people – they are each only arguing against me. So that’s three times as demanding straight away. Add to that that most of my comments have been considerably more detailed and explicit – it takes time and multiple revisions to word a comment accurately – and I’ve also been answering questions from two other commenters with whom I haven’t been arguing.
Sorry I got rude at some points. I had apologised once already.
Could you please save me some time by reposting the questions you feel I haven’t answered?
And then maybe you’ll address my replies to you.
Oh God…
No actually that isn’t ad hominem. Read it more carefully. I criticised their physics. And how come you haven’t indulged in ad hominem with your original “cartoon physics” remark? Sauce for the goose etc…
Clark,
Points to note:
1) I am here to debate or at least try to debate – not to argue 🙂
Is there anything we can agree on ?:)
2) “Cartoon” refers to the videos broadcast that day being poor computer graphics cartoons NOT a person’s physics knowledge.
e.g. It would apply the same if you were trying to figure out how roadrunner can leave a roadrunner shaped hole when he smashes into a building. See below.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-UveiYKMVUh8/VM_1eVqWf9I/AAAAAAAAD_I/IrUlfnKX-CI/s1600/9%3A11%2BRoadrunner%2Bhole%2B2.jpg
Is there anything we can agree on ?:) Please tell me you know the towers came down! 🙂
Got a ton of things to do now – Have a good day all. 🙂
Exexpat, thanks for clarifying what you meant by “cartoon physics”. I hope you can see that it isn’t necessarily obvious. Yes, I agree that the Twin Towers were destroyed.
Can we agree that after 9/11 the US government embarked upon, or at least greatly expanded, a programme of extracting confessions under torture?
Clark, you might be arguing against three other people, but Exexpat is right – you seem to be in an awful rush. It also appears that your output here is more than equal to everyone else’s combined. I reply to you and get five replies back – at least.
Let’s take this a bit easier, eh?
As for your momentum calculation – that’s easy enough to follow. You’ve conveniently taken a scenario where 10 items are free-falling onto one in isolation, ignoring :
– The items being hit were not just sitting in isolation in free space. They were attached to the structure. It’s going through robust structure, not isolated floors suspended in mid-air, waiting to drop.
– The collapse did not start with 10 onto 1. It started with a few onto hundreds. The calculation is an integral function, not a simple sum.
– The structure gets increasingly massive (with increased inertia) as we go down.
But again, this is just an idle discussion, there is nothing riding on it. When we were talking about inoculations, that was a case of future lives that might be blighted with bad information right now. This is an argument about history. If we cannot be a bit more dispassionate and personal here, let’s not bother at all.
Glenn,
Here you seem to be assuming that the structure’s ability to distribute momentum was unlimited. All three of your hyphened points seem to assume that, but the one I’ve quoted shows it most clearly. Why mention “a few onto hundreds”? If the structure was really that strong, you need to consider the mass of the planet, too. If this is the way you intended to go, you should have begun by asserting the strength of the structure, your original argument by momentum being irrelevant. I can’t imagine what you were thinking.
Considering the structure, I assert that the ability of the floors to share momentum with the load-bearing columns was severely limited. The floors were wide; large area. Most of each floor was a long way from the nearest support. And the floors were relatively weak, just four inches of concrete on a lightweight steel truss; their load-bearing capacity was much smaller than that of the vertical columns.
But it’s likely simpler than that, your whole argument here probably assumes unfeasible strength from the components called “angle clips” which connected the floors to the uprights. Paul Barbara linked to a page with a relevant quote and a diagram (not to scale):
Page: http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0112/eagar/eagar-0112.html
Diagram: http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/fig5.gif
Glenn, sorry to have bothered with the momentum argument, but you raised it.
Glenn, seeing as the wreckage has long since been disposed of, how can we prove that the angle clips complied with their original specification? How can we even tell that they were all fitted in the first place?
In short, you’re not going to be able to prove use of explosives from the manner of the collapses. Which is what Mike Ruppert (Guy McPherson’s dear, departed friend) warned us almost immediately after the event.
Glenn, finally, and sorry to post four comments in reply to just one of yours, you’ve again chosen to disagree with me but not with Exexpat. Does that indicate that you’re more in agreement with his hypotheses than with mine? Because that’s how it could look to casual readers.
Clark,
Please stop twisting other poster’s words again – Glenn agrees with me with me on the pace of debate – that’s all he said right? Maybe concentrate on what is being said?
Just for clarification and transparency – I understand you used to moderate the comments here Clark – is that correct? If so
-when was that?
-do you still have any of these responsibilities now for this website?
-Who is the moderator now?
Be patient with myself and the other posters svp?
I have only just started to submit the evidence of Media Fakery and am saving the best til last….
“Can we agree that after 9/11 the US government embarked upon, or at least greatly expanded, a programme of extracting confessions under torture?”
Can we agree to limit the scope of this current debate to the “events” on the day? Maybe for the next few pages or so if others agree?
That is not to negate any of your research in any way – but most of the post 9/11 events are covered in separate posts on this board.
Sherlock Holmes’s maxim remains valid: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.
What other possible cause of free fall of the buildings is there, besides explosives?
Exexpat, you seem to want to control things. You tell me how I can answer, what topics can be discussed, and now you want personal information. I’ll comply, to the extent that I choose. I haven’t twisted Glenn’s words, and I resent the accusation.
So. I was sent a moderator’s login in February 2011. I resigned because it became too stressful (if you’ve ever moderated you’ll know what I mean); at times I came under personal abuse including deliberate spamming of my email address by, funnily enough, conspiracy theorist commenters. I don’t remember when I resigned, but I did so by changing my password to a long, random value and logging out without keeping a copy.
I’ve since spent considerable time with Craig Murray and various members of his family, first by volunteering for the Doune the Rabbit Hole festival where Craig runs the bar, and later when I drove Craig to many destinations during the Scottish Independence campaign. I now consider Craig and I friends.
It was my suggestion to implement a policy of anonymous moderation at this site, just as the mainstream news websites operate. It protects the moderators from personal abuse. I will give no further information about the identity of moderators. I have Craig’s contact details. As a fairly regular reader I keep an eye on the threads and alert Craig if anything crops up that would seem to need his immediate attention.
None of this has the slightest bearing upon the collapses of the Twin Towers or the media coverage thereof which seem to be all you want to discuss, so seeing as I’ve been so forthcoming please tell me what you wanted to know for, and maybe even a bit about yourself 🙂
Lysias, I know it’s unlikely, but if the core of a building were to begin collapsing first, it could drag the visible exterior down even faster than free-fall.
Unlikely, but not impossible.
Exexpat, you may also be interested to know that I actively seek meetings with commenters at this site. I have met a dozen or more, and remain in contact with several of them. I’d be glad to meet up with you, or any other commenter. You could come and visit me if you wish; there’s a spare room and bed here.
Good posts Clarke intelligent and with a good spirit. You are what Craig’s blog needs.
My first suspicion about WTC7 was seeing the Barry Jennings interview shot on the day. Then the Rumsfeld press conference from the day or week before about the missing two trillion is mind boggling. What did happen to any investigation about that money. What records were lost in tower 7?
Who has benefitted from war in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria. Who is benefiting from ME instability? Who will benefit from European instability (assumed future instability would be more accurate)?
I don’t have the answers. It all seems cuckoo to me. I can’t help but ponder who was whispering in Robert Ludlum’s ear?! Anyway its nice to read your rebuttals-gives a little hope. Negligence and opportunism is preferable to conspiracy.
Clark
Thanks for the invite.
It wasn’t a request for personal information – it was an honest request for a declaration of interests pertaining to this blog and the 911 comments section we currently find ourselves in. That’s it.
I wasn’t asking for your ASL or any other vital statistics.
My declaration of interests / credentials are as follows:
– Reader on this site for a good few years now, def pre-habba and now sadly post Mary.
I used to like Cryptonyms posts and other usernames I forget. What happened to that poster btw?
– Did a few contracts at the UN under Carla del Ponte (who’s my hero, she knows how corrupt the UN is…)
– Researched 9/11 since 9/11 and Media Fakery for about 5 years
…
Fwl, far from ruling out conspiracy behind 9/11, I assume it. Obviously it couldn’t have happened without conspiracy; indeed, the official narrative proposes a conspiracy of nineteen hijackers, at least. A very useful conspiracy theory for the establishment since the conspirators are dead; they won’t be supplying any leads to the perpetrators, and subsequent questioning of “suspects” under torture scrambled that investigative approach too. Just. Fucking. Perfect.
I see plenty of motive, plenty who gained, and a huge crowd shouting “Demolition! Demolition”! Well what if it wasn’t demolition? I certainly can’t prove that it was and frankly, I think the Towers fell so fast because corners were cut in construction, and certain people had NIST cover it up for the New York Mob who’d skimped on materials. Even better cover; now we have a misleading cover-up to distract us, it could even be solved and we’d still be no closer to the perpetrators. Crime of the millennium, and in plain sight, indeed. All the bad guys got what they wanted.
Leads, if found, will be in paper-trails, computer records, emails, whistle-blowing – not momentum calculations. But the trail has cooled considerably.
“None of this has the slightest bearing upon the collapses of the Twin Towers or the media coverage thereof which seem to be all you want to discuss,”
Remind me which thread are we in again?!
Exexpat, thanks for the information about yourself. I thought you’d decided I was part of the Inside Job! I get accused of that from time to time because I don’t go for demolition of the Towers, or I get called “controlled opposition”. But I’m just me.
If you post your media fakery, expect me to try to pull it to bits. A healthy scepticism is an essential way to test anything.
Personal testimony of UN corruption is at the other end of the scale; you were as close to that as you could get, whereas media is the furthest remove.
Exexpat, 10:24 pm; forgive me – I was getting defensive.
Clark, Yes everything is a conspiracy but some have a capital C.