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).
No worries Glenn. I’m not in a hurry. There’s mountains of evidence to get through.
Haven’t fully researched the “The Triangle Shirtwaist Factory” yet,
But an initial read reveals a gem –
“The first person to jump was a man, and another man was seen kissing a young woman at the window before they both jumped to their deaths”
Do you or any other readers seriously believe that?
Glenn and Clark
I find it strange how BOTH OF YOU keep posting about not being establishment shills etc
I have never even mentioned it. Not even once.
Could you both agree to stop claiming it? Its very repetitive and diverts from the topic.
It actually reminds me a little of those people who start sentence “I am not a Racist… but” 🙂
Glenn “Hey – respond to this 3-hour youtube video” isn’t much of a fair discussion.”
I haven’t posted any 3 hour videos.
I appreciate we are all busy people so the videos I post are typically 5-10 minutes long.
The full length September clues is the exception at about 90mins IIRC and have only posted the link to it once or twice.
Exexpat, I know why Glenn mentioned long videos. Some time ago there was a heated discussion with a commenter called Scouse Billy. He was arguing that all vaccinations are a scam, that vaccinations had never prevented a single case of illness, that the principle upon which they work is a lie and that all the epidemiological studies showing them to be effective were fabricated.
Glenn and I both argued against Scouse Billy. Unfortunately, his method of argument was to post some witty sound-bite and refer us to – er – three hour YouTube videos. Over and over. He never stuck to a point; if any evidence was presented against any of his assertions he just dismissed it, changed the subject slightly to a different vaccine for instance, posted a link to another long video and finished off by saying “do your research”.
It’s just not a fair way to argue, ‘cos it takes him minutes to post his dismissive comment and we’re supposed to spend hours watching a video so we can address with the relevant points in it.
No, you haven’t directly called me and Glenn shills – though you have used insinuation, I think (eg. your Cameron “blood on hands” comment). John Goss accused at least me of deploying the arguments of “spooks”, and it’s also what you’re implying in your 11:40 am comment, isn’t it? Normal people do notice these sort of insinuations, you know; it’s pretty obvious when someone’s “playing to the gallery”.
Hmmm, on the face of it, which of these assertions should I be most suspicious of?
A couple trapped in a burning building exchanged some final affection before escaping the flames by jumping to their deaths.
An unheard of hologram projector using a technology only seen in science fiction made bloody great holes in two buildings.
??
Well I have at least heard of human beings, and I’ve even seen them kissing… Would I rather die quickly or slowly? Hmmm…
No, you’re right. It’s the hologram that’s real, isn’t it?
Morning Clark
How are you?
I can’t comment on Scousse Billy as IIRC haven’t come across his posts.
But I will repeat my previous comment from this morning
I appreciate we are all busy people so the videos I post are typically 5-10 minutes long.
Just to be clear:
I’m here in this forum/thread in good faith. I already apologised for the offence caused and retracted that statement. Is it fair to quote me on that now?
I’m definitely NOT here to try to make friends nor enemies, nor engage in any forum politics where posters disagree with each other on other issues. Out of scope for me. I’m afraid.
Its really important that the reader has an opportunity to decide and SEE FOR THEMSELVES – which is why I post links to the videos.
Cheers
“An unheard of hologram projector using a technology only seen in science fiction made bloody great holes in two buildings.”
Wow where, when did I assert that?
I think you are conveniently confusing John’s posts with mine.
Care to retract?
Exexpat, really? You’d choose the acrid smoke, coughing, streaming eyes, the searing heat and the eventual burning off of your skin rather than jump together with your lover?
Would you rather she watched you screaming to an agonising death or would you rather watch her?
Exexpat, it’s true that John Goss proposed holograms, not you. You didn’t object, mind, whereas you have just objected to something perfectly reasonable.
Yes you did apologise for the offence of your Cameron remark (and thanks for that), but you didn’t retract the innuendo it carried. There was also the insinuation in your “forum sliding” remark. It’s pretty clear that you’ve been trying to suggest, to other readers, that I’m presenting my arguments on behalf of “the establishment”. Doing it sneakily only makes it worse; you yourself have pointed out people’s susceptibility to suggestion. Would you agree to cut it out?
“You didn’t object, mind, whereas you have just objected to something perfectly reasonable”
Namely?
“Exexpat, it’s true that John Goss proposed holograms, not you. You didn’t object, mind, ”
You serious? Should I object to every post on this forum that isn’t in line with my own?
Christ if that were the rules of the forum we would all have our work cut out no?
Ridiculous.
It gets a bit like the” is this the right room for an argument?” sketch in here at times.
Sadly sans comedy. 🙁
Exexpat, we should collate and round up before we introduce further matters for discussion.
I found Nosed Out unconvincing. What did you make of my reasoning?
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-20/#comment-572903
I presented technical reasons for the distortions of colour on Synched Out:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-22/#comment-576071
Do you still regard colour distortions as ground for suspicion?
Exexpat, 1:35 pm, namely, that people trapped in a burning building might jump rather than burn. You objected here:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-23/#comment-576663
Exexpat, aren’t you just making me jump through hoops?
Exexpat, 1:35 pm:
Well, it isn’t a matter whether it’s “in line with your own” or not. Actually, 9/11, or any such matter f public awareness, isn’t all about you. Whether you get to win an argument or not is supremely unimportant. What matters is that truth is represented accurately, yes? So yes, I think you should have objected. But you didn’t and, to use innuendo, I think I and the readers know why.
“My enemy’s enemy is my friend”.
What grief and suffering that stupid concept has caused.
Exexpat (aside – I haven’t read any comments since 13:57) – things like “my enemy’s enemy is my friend” – we (by which I mean humans) don’t usually mean to do such things. We do them automatically, unconsciously. There’s a part of us that wants to win, and in evolutionary terms it’s much older than the parts of us that think and reason. As best I can tell, our default state is that our thinking, reasoning parts are in service to these older, more base desires. Consequently, we might act so as to win, but remain unaware of the competitive motivation; when questioned about our motivation our thinking, reasoning part can leap to the defence of the older, unconscious part and come up with a plausible excuse for our behaviour. In psychology, this is called “rationalisation”…
I did something similar myself, yesterday. I saw John Goss trolling, but failed to notice that Kempe had trolled a bit just before, provoking John Goss. But at least I noticed what I’d done and apologised, without John or anyone else having to point it out to me:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-23/#comment-576546
…I didn’t heap rationalisation upon rationalisation like John did, who repeatedly excused or distracted from his own deception, despite it being recorded upon the page, and apparently even now remains incapable of recognising what he did.
We often see evil and dishonesty in the powerful, but of course they’re only human just like us; it’s just that the consequences of their actions are so much more serious. The powerful sometimes cover things up quite deliberately, of course, but they remain human and often lie, rationalise, project and dissemble completely unconsciously just like anyone else does.
We have to beware our interpretations of such behaviour. It’s easy to pick out various politician’s deceptions and weave them into a complex narrative of conspiracy and deliberate deception, but that might not be the real reason for the deceptions at all; some of them might have been these typically human ego problems.
People even conspire automatically and unconsciously. They cover up for those they’re close to, or because they trust someone simply fail to question their friend’s motives.
Human behaviour can weave a very tangled web:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gaklhn3m0CE
Exexpat, myself, 1:52 pm in reply to you, 1:35 pm:
This is why me and Glenn can appear to be acting together. We’re both rationalists who recognise our human limitations, we both believe that there is a single reality or truth, we both subjugate our world-view to that reality and recognise that when there’s a contradiction it’s our world-view that needs to change, and we’re both trying to home in on what really happened by agreeing to abide by a well-established set of principles of reasoning. Glenn’s a hard-edged atheist whereas I’m more of a mystic, but I think Glenn will know what I mean if I phrase this in religious language; Glenn and I both regard ourselves as equal in the eyes of the omniscient creator – or for atheists, facts overrule opinion and everything including us is subject to universal natural law.
Of course, it doesn’t always work like that; after all, we’re only human.
But this is why Glenn and I can agree to disagree. I think gravity and damage were likely the cause of the Twin Towers’ collapses, but I accept that deliberate demolition was a possibility. Glenn sees deliberate demolition as the most likely explanation, but accepts that buildings can collapse from damage and gravity. We BOTH accept that there are degrees of uncertainty and degrees of likelihood, and we try to determine what was most likely. We DON’T try to dismiss each other as “establishment shills” because (1) we both accept our subjugation to reality and truth, and (2) such dismissal would mean abandoning the search for truth and resorting to each of us attempting to impose our will upon the other, ie. we’d be reduced to fighting.
So yes, Glenn and I are both “serving a higher power”, but that “higher power” is actually some ethical principles; acceptance of our equality and the search for truth.
Exexpat, sorry to have diverted into so much psychology, but we are incapable of perfect objectivity, we can never eliminate ourselves from the frame. Our nature inevitably influences the ways in which we apprehend reality, the ways we describe it and the ways we go about discussions of it.
Exexpat, I hope you won’t now suggest to readers that “forum sliding” has occurred, like you did before. We can always post important points again.
Holograms: Can any of the conspiracy buffs – Exexpat, John, anyone – please provide anything of substance that backs up the proposal that the planes were, in fact holograms.
Anything at all, apart from the say-so of person or persons unknown?
How is it done? With 15 years of technology since, where has such a thing ever been demonstrated? Where are the youtubes showing even a small scale example?
Surely this stuff would be a gold-mine for the entertainment industry. Surely we would have seen it sometime either before, or since, but most obviously – the technology would also have been invented elsewhere very quickly because that’s the way inventions have always worked. But projecting brilliant, convincing mid-air holograms was not a one-off technology invented and then disappered.
Where is the science behind it, where is there anything at all except idle assertion?
I just noticed that Craig made his Anna Ardin post on September 11 2012, and that was exactly eleven years after 9/11!
11, just like the Twin Towers!
What can it mean? I suppose it must prove that Craig and Julian thermited the towers themselves!
Something else that’s odd is going on here, Clark…
You mentioned Sept/11/ 2012 … That’s a 9, 11, 2,0,1,2 … all the digits add up to 25, and 2+5 = 7.
Even if you count the 11 as two 1’s, you get 9+1+1+2+0+1+2 = 16, 1+6= 7.
But it’s even more sinister than that. Look at those secret numbers at the bottom of this page:
/ Previous 1…. 22 23 24 /
I’m sure it won’t take you long to realise, 1 +2+2 + 2+3 + 2+4 = 16. 6 + 1 = 7.
And finally, to see the depths of deviousness involved here, look at the digits on a telephone keypad:
Craig = 2 7 8 4 4 = 25, 2 + 5 = 7
We’re through the looking-glass, people.
I didn’t realise that 7 cropped up so much.
7/7
That’s a division, it works out at 1. That’s just one of the Twin Towers on its own, so does that mean there’s another big false flag attack coming, or was that the bin wagon in Glasgow?
As readers can see, this is a very active area of research!
Well, as I’m sure you’ve realised by now, 9/11 is connected with our 7/7 much more closely than we realised. We were set up all along.
Glenn, 4 Feb, 12:48 am
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-23/#comment-576625
I’m interested in this assertion:
Why? Surely it depends upon the geometry more than anything. And how can we put some numbers to the following?
Mind, there looks to be a cover-up by NIST so if the Twin Towers did collapse due to damage it could be these figures that they’re withholding.
I suppose we could work backwards from the collapse times to guestimate how much energy or momentum was being lost into the ground…
Clark: The point about load-bearing walls didn’t come out _quite_ the way I meant. It would have been more along the lines of an opening to virtually unimpeded free-fall, but I think we agree that we’re looking at it from different perspectives. That’s useful, and I’m very glad you’re there to keep us honest about these things.
As mentioned, I’m going to have to give a bit more thought to it, in order to provide a more convincing case for a controlled demolition. The fact that it was unprecedented and caught everyone by surprise (including the professionals who were rushing into the building to rescue people, never expecting a total collapse), not to mention the collective Gallic shrug from the architects and engineering world who saw no reason to revise their building standards… none of that is actual _proof_, so hopefully we can discuss it again.
I’m off for a few days, actually – will catch you next week hopefully. Shame John Goss hasn’t come back to defend these holograms of his. After all, if you’re going to assert something that alarming and unconventional in the general way of thinking, you ought to do better than “I say it happened this way” and rush off.
Glenn, have a good week.
Hmmm, I do wonder. Have building regs been revised? It might have been on the quite, piecemeal. If the US admitted they had hundreds of unsafe skyscrapers and people couldn’t continue working in them, the US economy might not make it to the next implosion of the banks.
From the professional periodical Fire Engineering:
So that’s it right? That proves explosives! Not so fast; read some more of the article:
Node? What do you reckon?