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).
Goodnight Exexpat. Sorry, bad news for the morning. The septemberclues.info website and videos carry advertising for various music; The Cavemen, The Social Service, and SimonShack’s September Clues Soundtrack.
I think septemberclues.info itself is a hoax, and I think SimonShack cynically knows it.
If this is so, it’s disgusting.
Music advert page:
http://www.septemberclues.info/SCsoundtrack/index.html
Also linked to from page above is a band called The Social Service:
https://thesocialservice1.bandcamp.com/album/realitivity
And here are The Cavemen, advertised on SimonShack / Septembeer Clues videos, on bandcamp.com, the same site as The Social Service:
https://thecavemennz.bandcamp.com/
“John: I hate to break it to you, but anyone saying those planes were holograms – and actually believes it – is certifiably insane. Suggest to them that they check themselves in immediately.”
Meaning you don’t believe it Glenn. Whether you believe it or not the animator admitted over the telephone that they used his footage. Buildings appearing in different locations taht are impossiple. And the animator was there again to film the second plane! I’m fast beginning to think you have joined up with the Habbabkuk gang of disinformationists.
Add to that there are pilots for 911 truth, scientists and engineers for 911 truth, families of those who died for 911 truth, and all these thousands of credible people are wrong just because you want to believe government lies from CNN and the BBC.
Then you say it is me who wants to get checked in!
The other thing Glenn and Clark is the man who won his case against the BBC because of its lies shows there was clear evidence that it was scripted. The World Trade Centre 7 was still standing when it was announced that it had collapsed, as the picture in this report shows. I cannot believe that two intelligent people can be so naive in their support for crooked governments who took us into illegal wars.
http://beforeitsnews.com/9-11-and-ground-zero/2013/09/uk-man-wins-court-case-against-bbc-for-9-11-wtc-7-cover-up-video-2440298.html
Clark, I think there is enough evidence without Russia releasing satellite imagery it may or may not have. If it does have such images the reason they may have not been released could be to do with trying to maintain world peace.
Around the same time that articles were suggesting Russia might release images that show 9/11 was an inside job, Panorama put out one of the worst programmes that formerly respectable (a long time ago) production team has ever released. First its intent was to further villify Putin to endorse the crooked Robert Owen’s let’s blame Putin for Litvinenko’s death. Secondly it contained accusations that Putin’s secret services were responsible for apartment explosions based on Litvinenko’s book.
People still have difficulty grasping that Litvinenko and Berezovsky were crooks, one an oligarch who stole from the Russia its mineral wealth, and blasted propaganda at the people through his media ownership, (like Poroshenko is doing now in Ukraine), the other his minder and dirty-work doer (formerly KGB FSA agent).
Fortunately some documentary producers still try to get the truth out. This one is French.
http://eu.eot.su/2016/02/01/ukraine-asks-french-tv-to-take-film-about-mass-murder-in-odessa-off-the-air/?fb_ref=Default
John, I see you’re commenting on the “9/11 Amateur” video. I think we’re not ready to discuss that yet; there are too many points of disagreement and distrust already.
John, YOU didn’t post the link to the “9/11 Amateur” video. I think that YOU need to discuss the video that you DID link to, Captain Lear and holograms.
We have to separate the political motivations from the search for truth and accuracy, or we have only opinion; we’ll have no sound footing to proceed from.
I’d like to propose a logical principle.
When we have two competing narratives, disproving one does not add credibility to the other.
Agreed?
John Goss, 9:55 am:
Is that what the judge ruled, or are you exaggerating?
Has anyone here read the court transcript of Tony Rooke’s case? Anyone got a link to it?
John, you’ve seen me on demonstrations, you know I was at the Ecuadorian Embassy supporting Julian Assange, you know that I’ve helped keep this site open and usable for many years and in that time you’ve seen all my comments opposing oppression and corruption; are you really accusing me of “support for crooked governments who took us into illegal wars” (9:55 am) because I challenge specific assertions? Am I required to accept any assertion on the basis of loyalty or something?
Should I really need to continually defend myself against such accusations?
“Is that what the judge ruled, or are you exaggerating?”
The case was about non-payment of BBC licence fee. He did not pay because of the lies. The judge apparently said that while the evidence he presented on 9/11 was justifiable, the case was about non-payment of licence fee. So there were two cases, one which he won, and one for which he was acquitted.
But debating the Tony Rooke case is a red-herring. If you look at the picture in the link in my comment at 9.55 you will see that WTC7 also known as the Saloman Brothers Building was still standing while the banner script at the foot of the screen states that it has collapsed.
Unfortunately I’ve got other things to do now. Sorry.
John, if Tony Rooke’s case was a red herring, WHY did YOU introduce it?
Hmmm… “By any means necessary”.
I prefer “innocent until proven otherwise”.
Clark: “When we have two competing narratives, disproving one does not add credibility to the other.”
That absolutely stands to reason.
I’m pretty shocked that otherwise rational people like John Goss, with a long and noble record of championing socialism, is now lashing out at other individuals because they’re not credulous enough to believe complete rubbish.
In fact, we’re being personally attacked as some kind of state stooges, for not accepting every last crackpot theory out there – many of which contradict each other. This is as close to religious delusion as I’ve seen.
Then again, if someone is prepared to believe tens of thousands of guillotines are being rolled out across America in preparation for god knows what, without a scrap of evidence apart from some lunatic said so on a crazed right-wing site, they’ll believe anything at all. This should therefore come as no surprise.
Glenn, we need to face a facet of human nature. Humans seem to have a tendency to see someone who disagrees as an enemy.
The US had McCarthyism, Stalin had purges, all sorts of places had witch-hunts and the Nazis decided they needed to eradicate many groups including Jews.
We have to assume that we are all susceptible to this psychological tendency. We each have to guard against it in ourselves; we have to point it out when others do it, and we have to willingly self-assess when others point it out to us.
And we need to keep the testing of evidence focused. Each piece of evidence has to be tested, not only on its merits but also to determine its relevance. For instance, even if demolition of the Twin Towers by explosives or whatever is established, that doesn’t enable us to identify who did it nor why.
Regarding merits, we need consensus when an assertion has been eliminated, or it’ll keep coming back to waste our time. For instance, the Synched Out video asserts that colour distortion in television transmissions is grounds for suspicion of TV companies. I provided good technical reasons why it isn’t, but I’ve yet to hear from Exexpat that it can be discounted as evidence.
Clark – that’s fair enough, for my own part I’m not giving sufficient proof that a demolition was made (i.e. that the building was rigged). That’s just the way it appears to me. But note that this position is a long way from leaping on some speculation and saying that _has_ to be what happened, and anyone who disagrees must therefore be a Secret Agent spreading disinformation.
That is paranoia and stupidity, and I’m surprised to see John Goss exhibiting such tendencies. It’s one thing to say this or that theory is plausible, but another to claim it to be absolute fact on the flimsiest of evidence (at best).
It appears that, for some, ALL the supposed theories are true. The planes were on some sort of remote control. They were also not planes, but missiles. And they were holograms. And nothing was there at all – it was all CGI. Yet despite the obvious contradictions, all of them are believed!
All based on the strength that this or that person stated it was so. The need to believe it is incredibly strong.
Maybe the reason Russia hasn’t revealed evidence that 9/11 was faked is that it has its own reasons (Islamists within Russia, and the like) not to undermine the War on Terror.
Glenn_uk, 2:44 pm:
Glenn, it’s a witch-hunt. Accepting any aspect of the so-called “official narrative” is taken as evidence of supporting the Neocons*. Further, promoting any theory that contradicts the official story is taken as a sign of opposing Neocon policy. Facts no longer matter and consequently we end up with a mish-mash of contradiction and illogic which outside observers quite rightly ridicule – this is why I can’t get too upset with the likes of Kempe.
* (Sorry to say it Glenn, but I feel that you strayed perilously close to this in your comment to me of 29 Jan, 1:13 am, the one I complained to you about, when you accused me of “happily championing” an aspect of the official narrative – well yes, I would be happier if it turns out the Twin Towers weren’t rigged for demolition; I hope anyone would be. But I’ll do my very best not to let that interfere with my analysis – I certainly accept that the Neocons are capable of such evil.)
Actually, seeing as there are such people as violent religious extremists in the world, and seeing as they would hijack passenger aircraft and fly them into civilian targets if they got the chance, no one should be condemned or dismissed even for accepting the entire official story. Indeed, Craig himself falls into this category, though his caveats in his original post shows that he also remains open-minded.
What should matter in our judgement of people is whether they reject illegal war, torture, domestic mass surveillance, detention without trial, etc.
Lysias, 3:10 pm (aside); my impression is that the Kremlin merely pays lip-service to the “War on Terror” for publicity purposes – a government can’t really fail to “oppose terrorism” while retaining credibility. The “War on Terror” is a Neocon publicity invention to provide an excuse to militarily depose any government the US chooses to attack; the Neocons use it against Russian interests; for instance Syria was on Wesley Clark’s list of seven countries to be attacked, and Syria was home to many Russians and still has a Russian naval base.
Lysias, or anyone, but Lysias as I think you have military experience, I’d like to put something to you.
If you were in command of a US airbase, in the Middle East, say, and on your watch some unspecified group managed to fly passenger aircraft into your base, destroying it and killing some 3000 US military personnel, would you be likely to be promoted?
Or court marshalled?
” The case was about non-payment of BBC licence fee. He did not pay because of the lies. The judge apparently said that while the evidence he presented on 9/11 was justifiable, the case was about non-payment of licence fee. So there were two cases, one which he won, and one for which he was acquitted. ”
No; the judge ruled Rooke’s “evidence” on 9/11 was irrelevant, refused to hear it, docked him £200 costs and gave him a conditional discharge. That is he was discharged on condition that he got a TV Licence. Seeing as nearly three years on he’s not been brought back to court either he has or he’s got rid of his telly.
Only the twisted mind of a truther could see that as a victory for Rooke.
“What should matter in our judgement of people is whether they reject illegal war, torture, domestic mass surveillance, detention without trial, etc”
Well, I do, and I am sure you and Glenn do. I know who committed the illegal wars, the same criminals who brought down the twin towers and WTC7. I do not accuse you of being spooks so much as presenting the arguments of spooks – possibly unaware that these too are the spooks’ arguments. Only you know that. But I have seen the arguments of 1600 scientists and engineers and hundreds of aviation specialists and I know who I trust against a couple of comment-makers on a blog. 😀
John Goss, what about Craig, Julian Assange, Sibel Edmonds, Daniel Ellsberg, Noam Chomsky, etc. etc. etc? You know better than all these, too? Most of them know quite a lot about spooks.
Beware arrogance, John Goss.
Kempe, thanks. Got a link to where you found that? John Goss’ beforeitsnews.com link was a rehash from sott.net
“Only the twisted mind of a truther could see that as a victory for Rooke.”
Only the twisted mind of a troll could try and make a thread about 9/11 into a TV licence court case thread. I call that diversionary since the link was only posted in confirmation of the graphics ‘expert’ who amateurishly holographed in the planes and admitted that the news channels used his footage, and the WTC7 BBC footage where Jane Stanley announces that the Saloman Brothers building is down when it is behind her – due apparently to a mistaken Reuters press release (which they let out before it fell). Then it did fall. I suspect that only a troll would want to divert the thread, but I could be wrong. 😀
John Goss, I have NEVER known Kempe to troll. Kempe is one of the most restrained commenters on the blog.
John Goss, that was an ad-hominen argument against Kempe. “Twisted mind”? And you’ve LIED, John, twice! Shame on you.
“John Goss, what about Craig, Julian Assange, Sibel Edmonds, Daniel Ellsberg, Noam Chomsky, etc. etc. etc? You know better than all these, too? Most of them know quite a lot about spooks.
Beware arrogance, John Goss.”
None of those you mention are experts in either aeronautics or engineering. They just express a personal opinion like you and me. But my arrogant opinion is backed up by science, science that the authorities refuse to investigate. Perhaps the etc, etc, etc (who they?) are the experts.