The 9/11 Post 11807

 in War in Iraq by

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).

Allowed HTML - you can use: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

11,807 thoughts on “The 9/11 Post”

1 … 77 78 79 80 81 … 134
  • exexpat

    @mods

    Thanks no I have my own copy just making sure of something.

    Also

    “Clark
    5 Feb, 2016 – 7:51 pm
    And your opinion of Jews, Exexpat?”

    @Mods – How is this relevant to 911 please?

  • exexpat

    Well done on the smear job Clark and defending Habbabkuk.

    Truly one of the board’s biggest trolls and most despised posters.
    This entity together with other bullies made life hell for Mary… and those unfortunate enough to get caught up in it.

    @mods is there an anti-bullying policy?

  • exexpat

    So you didn’t post this, then?

    https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2015/12/no-brake-and-no-disclosure-on-media-owners-interests/comment-page-2/#comment-567263

    Yes I posted that in response to Lysias and Tony’s comments who introduced “Occult numerology”

    My comment:

    “Tony M and Lysias

    Occult numerology whilst utter bollocks is the evidence of their lies. Why do you think they use 11 so much?

    e.g.

    “11. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)—speeds…”

    http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtctowers.cfm

    And if you believe the towers fell for 9 and 11 seconds then you will believe anything.”

    Here is the proviso again for the hard of (sm/h)earlng:

    “Occult numerology whilst utter bollocks.”

  • Clark

    Exexpat, I’m really disappointed that Mary stopped commenting here; she’s an excellent researcher, but she’s no angel and she breaks moderation rules herself.

    Concerning anti-bullying there is Craig’s rule:

    Fair Play. Play the ball, not the man. Address arguments, not people. Do not impugn the motives of others, including me. No taunting.

    Now my numerology banter with Glenn last night could be taken as taunting of you, I suppose, though I didn’t actually direct it at you in any way, and it does address your argument; it’s very easy to find correspondences between small integers.

    But you’ve been insisting, quite directly, that Glenn and I are working for the establishment to protect mass-murderers; by any rational assessment, that is much worse. You have undoubtedly impugned our motives.

    I know from my experience that moderating personal abuse is difficult. Mods can’t monitor the comments continuously, and abuse prompts further abuse. Slanging matches tend to escalate, so it’s important not to return abuse for abuse; two wrongs don’t make a right, so Don’t Feed the Trolls or you become a troll yourself and your comments get deleted – compliance seems easy enough. Try being polite to Habbabkuk and thereby depriving him of excuses for bad behaviour; it seems to work for me.

    Would you like to return to the topic now?

  • exexpat

    Clark, You’re an ex-mod – what does “on the mod watch list” mean exactly?

    —

    “Now my numerology banter with Glenn last night could be taken as taunting of you.”

    From my end Clark you and Glenn were really taking the piss. I haven’t been ridiculed like that since I was at school.

    Glenn described me as “a conspiracy buff” – fuck me I wouldn’t wish that on my own worse enemy !
    and smeared me (again) by asking me about holograms.

    Let me be 100% clear here-

    a) I did not introduce Holograms nor “Occult Numerology”.
    Occult numerology I have stated as bollocks as shown in the comment above.

    b) If Glenn_uk asks me a direct question – I would like (and probably Glenn might like) to be given the chance to answer him directly without you taking over. – Surely that is reasonable? I’ll test this if I may by asking Glenn a direct question that he may answer upon his return.

    c) My proposal for as to how 911 happened (or actually didn’t happen) involves very low tech technology (not sci-fi) and old as the hills propaganda updated electronically (media fakery) to electrically shock the audience so they are so traumatised they cannot see the bullshit they are being sold.

  • Clark

    Exexpat:

    I’m not sure about the “watch list”. There’s communication between the mods, so probably an e-mail’s gone out saying to watch out for anti-Semitism from you.

    Yes, Glenn’s like that when he thinks something’s daft; you should see what he says about religion! But that’s Glenn; there’s no point going on about it to me. And don’t you think you’re acting a wee bit sensitive?

    a) I’ve already said you didn’t introduce holograms. I am however a bit mystified. John Goss introduced holograms which contradicts your media-fakery theory, but that doesn’t make him an establishment troll in your opinion. In fact, you didn’t even find it even worth challenging. Why? (That’s a question; I’d appreciate an answer). Glenn favours deliberate demolition of the Towers, but he is an establishment troll in your opinion; why? (that’s also a question, or part of the same question – what are your criteria for identifying establishment trolls? Again, it’s an answer I’m looking for here; I’m trying to understand).

    b) I have no power to “take over”. I can answer if I wish, and so can you, or Glenn, or anyone. What gives you any right to compel me or anyone else to silence? (Again, I’m requesting an answer to help me to understand). You seem to claim the authority to tell me when I may or may not answer, so if anything, it would seem to be you that wants to take over, whereas I’ve never demanded silence from you. Why do you think or feel that you have such authority? (that’s another question; I can’t understand without an answer from you). And no, it doesn’t seem reasonable to me. If you want to converse privately with Glenn, and he agrees, I’ll help you exchange e-mail addresses but on this blog, discussion is public.

    c) Yes, I’d got this bit; I’m not thick, thanks. No answer requested.

  • Clark

    Maxter, that’s a two hour video. Can you point me to the appropriate evidence in more accessible form, or summarise or something please?

  • Maxter

    Hi Clark

    The documentary outlines the bbc and other news outlets describing the collapse of WTC7 before it did, plus interviews with police and firefighters that were there that day stipulating explosions and filmed evidence of workers stating on the scene that they are going to bring down building no7. Other parts deal with aspects of false flag terrorism of days gone by including the Northwoods project.
    Its a must watch for doubters!
    Thanks.

  • Clark

    Maxter, thanks! Really refreshing to be answered after days of banging my head against Exexpat’s brick wall.

    OK, conventional arguments I’ve seen against deliberate demolition are:

    * that Building 7 was cordoned off because it was believed to be in danger of collapse,

    * that an instrument called a ‘transit’ was placed in a major crack in the building’s structure to measure the rate of widening of the gap, and when this rate increased collapse of the building was anticipated,

    * that explosions in a building on fire are to be expected.

    I’m aware of and accept the occurrence of false flag operations in general. Some of my own doubts that Building 7’s destruction was pre-planned are:

    * that it would have been exceedingly difficult to predict the precise damage pattern around the Twin Towers,

    * the question of the purpose of deliberately destroying it,

    * the remarkably similar appearance of the collapse to a controlled demolition has obviously jeopardised the credibility of the entire 9/11 plot and so seems unlikely to have been part of any plan.

    The following really interests me:

    “…filmed evidence of workers stating on the scene that they are going to bring down building no7”

    I’ve never encountered that before; would you summarise please? Any indication of the method they intended to use? I am of course familiar with Silverstein’s “pull it” remark, but workers’ remarks sound a lot more interesting. Can you give me time references for sections you think would most interest me?

  • Clark

    Maxter, I am also of course aware that the collapse of the building was announced on TV news over twenty minutes before it occurred.

  • fwl

    WTC7 was “pulled”. That was admitted and it looks obvious. How long does it take to rig up a tower block? Days or hours?

  • fwl

    Maybe a plane was expected to hit WTC7 but didn’t. Flight 93 was not thought to be going to NY but who knows? Is the flight 23 story an urban myth or true?

  • Maxter

    Hi Clark

    08.35 minutes there are workers clearing others out of the way for building about to be blown up!

    23.45 Operation Northwoods, a previous plan not unlike 9/11.

    39.00 Freefall acceleration.

  • Maxter

    Also at 1 hr 49 minutes it leads into a news correspondents microphone picking up multiple explosions!

  • Clark

    I’m currently examining the video of Barry Jennings. First I watched it right through. Now I’m going through it carefully and making notes. This has so far taken me an hour and a half or more and it’s quite disappointing; I’m already pretty sure that I’m not going to find anything to confirm or eliminate deliberate demolition of Building 7. Points I’ve established so far:

    * Jennings was asked to report to work at the Office of Emergency Management and was told, and he believed that others thought, that “a small Cesna (aircraft) had lost its way” and had crashed into the WTC.

    * Jennings heard a lot of explosions at various times. One explosion occurred beneath him and Mr Hess when they were on the 6th floor, forcing them to go back up to the 8th floor.

    * Jennings was in the building during the collapses of both of the Twin Towers, but he didn’t witness either collapse. When he was talking to the fire-fighters and he saw them run away he was on the north side of Building 7 where he had no view of the Twin Towers.

    * When the fire-fighters eventually evacuated Mr Jennings through the lobby, it was so badly damaged that it was unrecognisable.

    * Jennings says he was in the building from about 9am until 1pm.

    * Jennings was apparently not allowed to reveal the location at which he testified to the authorities.

    Some of Jennings’ description is at least confusing and may be contradictory. Those are the parts I’m investigating now.

  • Clark

    Maxter, you say you find this video contains “very revealing information” whereas I’m finding it disappointing. Of course I could be missing something. While I continue examining what Barry Jennings said, could you post times and/or transcripts of what you find revealing, what it convinces you of and why?

  • Maxter

    Looks to me like we differ in opinion on what Mr Jennings has to say. I don’t think you will have much to say regarding Incontrovertible either.
    Cheers

  • Clark

    As analysing the Jennings video was getting a bit heavy for me, I turned my attention to Maxter’s 7 Feb, 2016 – 10:37 am reference of 08.35 minutes into the Killing Auntie video Incontrovertible.

    Several fire-fighters are recorded, variously saying that Building 7 is “about to come down”, “about to blow up” or “is exploding”. A some loud cracks, which could be explosives, are heard. However, no one says that the building is about to be blown up.

    One interpretations is that these men were just using impulsive language. I’ve mentioned before that I used to fix CRT televisions; these days I do computers. It’s perfectly normal for people to tell me that some device has “blown up” when it hasn’t even gone bang. There was one occasion back in the ’80s when a neighbour’s TV we were watching made a loud pop and started emitting black smoke; while everyone else started asking each other what to do I leapt up, unplugged it while shouting to open the back door, picked it up and ran out into the back garden with it. It was the most memorable experience I’ve ever had watching TV.

    Another interpretation is that these men were talking literally. However, wouldn’t this make them part of a secret plot, or for some reason informed by someone who was part of a plot? They seem to be ordinary emergency personnel in uniform. Surely if conspirators were involved they wouldn’t announce their intention to detonate explosives? A deliberate double-bluff seems too Bugs Bunny, surely?

    Sorry folks, I’m not convinced yet…

  • Clark

    Maxter 9:52 pm; we shouldn’t have any difference in opinion as to what Jennings said, unless some words are unclear – for instance, at one point he answered how long he was in Building 7, but I can’t quite make out whether he said “seven hours” or “several hours”. We could differ in opinion about that sort of thing, but by-and-large, what Jennings said on the video is a matter of record, ie. a matter of fact.

    Presumably you mean that we differ in opinion about the meanings or implications of what Jennings said.

    He said that he heard various explosions while he was in Building 7, and I don’t doubt him. Presumably, these explosions were not what brought Building 7 down because he says he got out of the building at about 1pm and the building didn’t fall for at least another four hours.

    Exexpat accused me of discussing like a lawyer, but that’s exactly what is needed here. If someone’s been killed, and last week you had an argument with him and shouted “sometimes I want to kill you”, it is only the most cursory evidence that you murdered him, especially if he got hit by a train. I think you’d be outraged to be convicted for murder on the basis of shouting at someone in anger, and rightly so.

    So, as I said before, please post times and/or transcripts of what you find revealing, what it convinces you of and why.

  • Clark

    I do hope that people see that I’m taking the evidence seriously. I have actually put considerable time into considering that with which I’ve been presented. I’ve watched videos carefully, listened carefully to what the subjects said, and made notes. I’ve posted what I’ve found, asked to be directed to the most important parts, and remain open to challenge on any point.

    As I proceed with this I’m actually becoming more convinced that the rapid and remarkably symmetrical collapse of Building 7 was an unlikely fluke – though I’m determined to keep an open mind. I’ve encountered many confident assertions on the ‘net that there is much very strong evidence for deliberate demolition, but each piece of evidence I examine turns out to seem rather weak, the single exception so far being the ~2.5 seconds of descent of the building’s exterior at roughly free-fall acceleration.

    Barry Jennings’ account is an example. I couldn’t remember his name, but I’d seen the video years ago and knew that some people claimed him to be a “key witness” and that he was killed to shut him up. But now I’ve listened carefully to what he said he didn’t seem to know anything remotely worth murdering him for.

    Now I don’t know what the official reports have to say, so maybe Jennings’ account does contradict them. If the official reports say there were no explosions, or no bodies in the lobby, or that the office Jennings and Hess visited wasn’t already evacuated, then Jennings’ account contradicts those reports. The reports may be total shite. But that is in no way evidence that Building 7 was deliberately demolished.

    Please note that I do not accept the official account of 9/11, I’m convinced there are cover-ups, or possibly even one big cover-up (which is not the same thing), and I call for an independent, international investigation into 9/11. I’m just not convinced so far that the buildings were rigged for and then deliberately demolished. And I keep an open mind.

  • Clark

    I’ll also add that I do regard 9/11 as the “new Pearl Harbor” called for by the Neocon Project for a New American Century in Rebuilding America’s Defenses, I think former General Wesley Clark was honest in his account of the memo calling for the overthrow of seven countries in five years, that he was right to reveal it to the public. I deplore the torture that the 9/11 Commission Report was 40% based upon, I deplore the US-led wars on Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and various others that I know less about.

    Nevertheless, I expect some here will think I’m lying about all the above and that because I’m not convinced the buildings were demolished then I must be in on the plot and trying to trick them. Oh well.

1 … 77 78 79 80 81 … 134

Comments are closed.