The 9/11 Post 11807


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 79 80 81 82 83 134
  • Clark

    Next time there’s a building that was the tallest, least substantial and most ambitious structure in the world at the time of its construction, why not smash in many of its support members on two sides and a good section of the core with an enormous high velocity blunt instrument, simultaneously strip even more uprights of their fireproofing, immediately ignite several cubic metres of liquid fuel all within that damage zone, and see whether it burns out or collapses into a bloody great heap of rubble and twisted metal several stories deep over an area many times its own footprint.

    FIFY

  • glenn_uk

    Oh, thanks Clark – I’d seen that message from Exexpat while skimming posts from a few days ago, and meant to respond. Appreciate it.

    *

    Exexpat, you expressed doubt that people would be jumping from the burning buildings of the WTC. Hence your “falling pixels” youtube post, and follow-ups in conversation that you found it hard to imagine people jumping to their deaths on a voluntary basis.

    It appeared that you might benefit from seeing a very well documented occasion where exactly that phenomenon occurred, to the great dismay of a large number of witnesses. People jumped, some hand in hand, to certain deaths rather than burn alive.

    Rather than accept this very well documented manner of human behaviour in desperate and tragic circumstances, it dismayed me, somewhat, that you poured scorn on that event. If anyone knows anything at all about the labour movement worldwide – in America in particlar – it would be obvious that the NY Triangle Factory fire was a pivot in the movement to introduce basic worker safety.

    Whereas you – enlightened beyond our dreams – express doubts about whether it happened at all. Maybe that was a “false flag” operation too? Unbelievable. Has something got to happen four inches from your face, before you feel able to accept it actually occurred?

  • Clark

    Fwl, I think the reason the towers went down relatively neatly is because their tube-within-a-tube design, and specifically the outer tube, helped channel the falling rubble down within, containing and concentrating it, hastening the collapse through the thin floors and also keeping the rubble pile more compact.

    I found some photos of the aftermath; at 1:1 pixel ratio these are much bigger than a typical monitor or laptop screen so be sure to zoom in and explore. I find it difficult to take in the scale:

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3b/September_17_2001.jpg

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/3/3b/20050601212321!September_17_2001.jpg

    And people say there wasn’t much wreckage, with no big pieces in it. Huh.

    Yes, Building 7’s collapse looks suspiciously neat on the videos, and how did go down so fast? The “no resistance” argument is a dud; it would still go down slower than g because of air and chaotic debris. And you can see that the façade maintained its integrity; it would still have been providing support in that state. It looks as if something inside must have literally pulled the outside down. So spooky, given what Silverstein said, init? But the appearance is that the core started descending, and then by pulling on the horizontals it pulled the façade down after it, so the façade went down even faster than it could have fallen; does that make marginal sense?

    Here’s a description of the building’s structure from Wikipedia:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center

    “The building was constructed above a Con Edison substation that had been on the site since 1967.[15] The substation had a caisson foundation designed to carry the weight of a future building of 25 stories containing 600,000 sq ft (56,000 m2).[16] The final design for 7 World Trade Center was for a much larger building than originally planned when the substation was built.[17] The structural design of 7 World Trade Center therefore included a system of gravity column transfer trusses and girders, located between floors 5 and 7, to transfer loads to the smaller foundation.[7] Existing caissons installed in 1967 were used, along with new ones, to accommodate the building. The 5th floor functioned as a structural diaphragm, providing lateral stability and distribution of loads between the new and old caissons. Above the 7th floor, the building’s structure was a typical tube-frame design, with columns in the core and on the perimeter, and lateral loads resisted by perimeter moment frames.[16]

    A shipping and receiving ramp, which served the entire World Trade Center complex, occupied the eastern quarter of the 7 World Trade Center footprint. The building was open below the 3rd floor, providing space for truck clearance on the shipping ramp.[16] The spray-on fireproofing for structural steel elements was gypsum-based Monokote which had a two-hour fire rating for steel beams, girders and trusses, and a three-hour rating for columns.[6]”

    Does read like Building 7 sorta had feet of clay.

  • Clark

    The frequency of published and unpublished reports raising questions about the steel fireproofing and other fire protection elements in the buildings, as well as their design and construction, is on the rise. The builders and owners of the World Trade Center property, the Port Authority of New York-New Jersey, a governmental agency that operates in an accountability vacuum beyond the reach of local fire and building codes, has denied charges that the buildings’ fire protection or construction components were substandard but has refused to cooperate with requests for documentation supporting its contentions… The destruction and removal of evidence must stop completely.”

    http://www.fireengineering.com/articles/print/volume-155/issue-1/departments/editors-opinion/elling-out-the-investigation.html

  • Clark

    Fwl, I’ve found the interview – 26:15, right?:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqqelDq4P48

    Interviewer: We are on the ‘phone with New York Fire Department Lieutenant David Rastuchio(?), can you confirm it was number Seven that just went in?

    Rastuchio: Yes sir.

    Interviewer: Uh, you were, you guys knew this was coming all day?

    Rastuchio: We had been ha… we had first report(?) that the building was unstable, and that eventually it would either come down on its own, or it would be taken down.

    As best as I can make it out.

  • Clark

    Should point out that the sound is cut off after “…taken down”, so we don’t know whether Rastuchio continued after that.

  • Clark

    Building 7 was someone’s psi-op? They knew the structure, and that a few well-placed charges in the bowels of the building could take down the “system of gravity column transfer trusses and girders, located between floors 5 and 7”, pulling the whole building down behind it, and they did it to make us argue about explosives in the Twin Towers for years and years…

    Or a silly fluke, and that critical structure just failed?

    I dunno. So when I criticise the various 9/11 reports, I’ll stick to things I’m sure of.

    What’s the timing of the loud cracks heard around the onset of Seven’s collapse? Compensating for sound covering the distance, does that sound just precede the fall of that first penthouse bit, or is it after that?

  • Clark

    Still doesn’t tell us whose psi-op, though. If it was, it certainly threw suspicion on the US government, and gave us alt-media crew a big distraction.

    Torture. Confessions. Anthrax. Wesley Clark. Illegal Iraq war.

    They can’t argue about those.

  • Clark

    SAUDI ARABIA, “ally” to the US. Bush’s friends the Bin Ladens. The CIA working with militant islamists since the Mudhajeen. They can’t deny any of that, either. The redacted sections of the 9/11 report. These all stink.

  • fwl

    Clarke, thanks there is lot to consider above. Maybe feet of clay, maybe quick rig up, maybe pre-rigged for a 3rd plane which never came? I have no evidence for 3rd scenario. Just a thought.

  • fwl

    Clarke, you make a valid point about the cut off of the interview of Lieutenant David Restuccio. There is a fuller version on you tube if you google his name. After explaining that they had known all day it was coming down, either collapsing or being brought down the next sentence missing from the decade of doubt film is “I imagine it came down on its own” its also interesting that the longer version shows the channel name. This omission pisses me off. Decade of Doubt presents itself as objective with judicial pretensions. U am not sure what the relationship is between the Canadian “inquiry” and film, but I would expect to see evidence presented warts and all. This missing sentence makes be doubt other parts of the film (tho I’ve still inly seen 30 min).

    Media law is spin spin spin. Sadly it seems to have pragmatic value though hopefully not with me. BTW David Restuccio became an ambulance driver and died in 2012. I don’t know if he ever spoke about the day again – I would gave thought people would have wanted to ask him about why he said what he did. Maybe he decided just to get in with his own life. Sounds like he was a good guy helping people. Helping people in life in a positive way is more beneficial than holding depressing negative world views. Of course can be sceptical but still happy in the moment. Have a nice day.

  • Clark

    Fwl, thanks. Thanks for “Restuccio” which I can Google now, and for the rest of what he said. Thanks for reading through my comments. I know I’ve been posting a lot and some see that as a source of suspicion in itself, but I’ve been both learning and wondering as I go; never looked at this in this much detail before.

    Yes, over the years I’ve wondered if another aircraft was intended for Building 7. On balance, I think probably not. No one had much heard of Building 7, and probably never would have. Its only real claim to fame is its utterly weird demise. The other targets were iconic, symbolic; lodged in the public consciousness before the attacks.

    If the attacks were “because they hate our freedoms” shouldn’t an aircraft have targeted the Statue of Liberty?

    It’s actually interesting to note which targets weren’t hit; other symbolic targets would be the White House and the Capitol. Interesting that the US government presented names for precisely the hijackers who allegedly died in the impacts, and no one else at all, which is even neater than Building 7’s collapse.

  • Clark

    Myself:

    “Interesting that the US government presented names for precisely the hijackers who allegedly died in the impacts, and no one else at all”

    Thinking about it, this was sheer bloody audacity. “No, there’s nothing left to do here at home in the US, they’re all dead, they didn’t work with anyone else on US soil, let’s turn our (and your) attention overseas”.

  • Clark

    Fwl, 8:26 am:

    “This omission pisses me off. Decade of Doubt presents itself as objective with judicial pretensions. U am not sure what the relationship is between the Canadian “inquiry” and film, but I would expect to see evidence presented warts and all.”

    This pisses me off across the whole 9/11 Truth movement. Far too many people seem to have set out with a main intention of proving deliberate demolition of the Twin Towers. It’s too narrow a focus, it’s tunnel vision. The Twin Towers were symbolic of US corporatism; and since when have we alt-media people been protecting that, specifically?

    Myself, rather than some monolithic Conspiracy with a Big C, I think 9/11 occurred through convergence of interests.

  • Clark

    It would certainly have been much easier to rig demolition for the critical floors 5 through 7 of Building 7 than the sort of sequenced demolition proposed for the Twin Towers, each charge going off at just the right time to create the appearance of a top-down crush-collapse. Or for Building 7, just a truck-bomb in the goods shipping zone:

    A shipping and receiving ramp, which served the entire World Trade Center complex, occupied the eastern quarter of the 7 World Trade Center footprint. The building was open below the 3rd floor, providing space for truck clearance on the shipping ramp.

    That sounds like a big cavity, ideal for the core to descend into. “Pulling” Building 7 seems quite easily doable; just “pull” the support from under the core.

    If Building 7’s collapse was psi-op, Silverstein’s “so we did pull, and we watched the building collapse” would seem part of it. Does that mean Silverstein was intimately involved with the entire 9/11 operation, or did he just know it was coming and found it to converge with his own interests?

    Should note that Building 7’s fireproofing was rated for two and three hours, and the building stood, burning, for over twice that duration.

    I doubt we’ll ever know for sure.

  • Clark

    Maxter, I’ve got a bit sensitive about people suspecting that I’m paid to do disinformation. I’ve ranged quite broadly through various scenarios, trying out ideas, but I’m not wedded to deliberate demolition theories. I’d be interested in how my thinking comes across to you…

  • Maxter

    Clark, if building 7 was pulled in some other fashion and not controlled demolition, I am sure the operators would have been paraded on tv as heroes telling their story on how they brought down the building in a controlled fashion to save any further endangered life, probably would have read a book or two by now about how bravely they pulled a building that was in danger of immediate collapse at any time as well as being on fire.
    I have nothing more to add., but you keep digging and I hope you find what you are looking for!

    Best from Maxter.

  • Fwl

    Clarke, 1.14:

    This pisses me off across the whole 9/11 Truth movement. Far too many people seem to have set out with a main intention of proving deliberate demolition of the Twin Towers

    …………..

    I know what you mean although I expect to someone presenting an argument to spin the facts to suit their view. If your purporting to come up to judicial standards (which the decades of doubt film maker apparently is) then whilst the advocates can spin (though not lie or mislead) the authority (or jury) has to make every effort to avoid spinning and instead try to work out who is the dirty dog, or who is swinging the lead.

    You ask why WTC7 it didn’t have public significance: I concur its not a well known building and I remember being surprised to hear that there were more than two towers which had fallen and confused that there was one numbered 7, but reading on I had thought that the relevance lay in what it contained. I remember reading allegations that there were SS, IRS and SEC documents which were not backed up elsewhere and which were lost with Tower 7. I also remember that just before 9/11 Rumsfeld appeared on TV to complain that there was two trillion dollars missing from the military i.e. something to do with unaccounted unaudited expenditure (remember Eisenhower’s warning about the unwarranted power of the industrial military complex?) That was soon forgotten. Its all very odd. Rumsfeld was like the good guy raising the question of the missing two trillion. Maybe we should follow up those two trails: 1) what docs were lost in WTC7 and 2) What did happen to the missing two trillion of defence money?

  • ------------·´`·.¸¸.¸¸.··.¸¸Node

    Fwl : I also remember that just before 9/11 Rumsfeld appeared on TV to complain that there was two trillion dollars missing from the military ….

    Rumsfeld did indeed make a speech the day before 9/11 about trillions missing from the defence budget. However, this sentence — “According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions.” — is often quoted out of context. He was making a more general point about updating defence accounting systems. The $2.3 trillion is best not mentioned in a 9/11 context because it is not the smoking gun it seems – it muddies the water.

    “The adversary’s closer to home. It’s the Pentagon bureaucracy. Not the people, but the processes. Not the civilians, but the systems…

    In this building, despite this era of scarce resources taxed by mounting threats, money disappears into duplicative duties and bloated bureaucracy—not because of greed, but gridlock. Innovation is stifled—not by ill intent but by institutional inertia.

    Just as we must transform America’s military capability to meet changing threats, we must transform the way the Department works and what it works on…

    Our challenge is to transform not just the way we deter and defend, but the way we conduct our daily business…

    The men and women of this department, civilian and military, are our allies, not our enemies. They too are fed up with bureaucracy, they too live with frustrations. I hear it every day. And I’ll bet a dollar to a dime that they too want to fix it. In fact, I bet they even know how to fix it, and if asked, will get about the task of fixing it. And I’m asking.

    They know the taxpayers deserve better. Every dollar we spend was entrusted to us by a taxpayer who earned it by creating something of value with sweat and skill — a cashier in Chicago, a waitress in San Francisco. An average American family works an entire year to generate $6,000 in income taxes. Here we spill many times that amount every hour by duplication and by inattention.

    That’s wrong. It’s wrong because national defense depends on public trust, and trust, in turn, hinges on respect for the hardworking people of America and the tax dollars they earn. We need to protect them and their efforts.

    Waste drains resources from training and tanks, from infrastructure and intelligence, from helicopters and housing. Outdated systems crush ideas that could save a life. Redundant processes prevent us from adapting to evolving threats with the speed and agility that today’s world demands.

    Above all, the shift from bureaucracy to the battlefield is a matter of national security. In this period of limited funds, we need every nickel, every good idea, every innovation, every effort to help modernize and transform the U.S. military….

    The technology revolution has transformed organizations across the private sector, but not ours, not fully, not yet. We are, as they say, tangled in our anchor chain. Our financial systems are decades old. According to some estimates, we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions. We cannot share information from floor to floor in this building because it’s stored on dozens of technological systems that are inaccessible or incompatible.

    We maintain 20 to 25 percent more base infrastructure than we need to support our forces, at an annual waste to taxpayers of some $3 billion to $4 billion. Fully half of our resources go to infrastructure and overhead, and in addition to draining resources from warfighting, these costly and outdated systems, procedures and programs stifle innovation as well. A new idea must often survive the gauntlet of some 17 levels of bureaucracy to make it from a line officer’s to my desk. I have too much respect for a line officer to believe that we need 17 layers between us….”

    http://www.defenselink.mil/speeches/2001/s20010910-secdef.html

  • Clark

    Maxter, 2:07 pm; good point about the improbability of a legitimate demolition of Building 7, though I’m a little confused since I hadn’t suggested that.

    The video you linked to 9/11 – Anatomy of a Great Deception seems better than most and I may download it tonight when my broadband’s unmetered and watch it right through when I have time. I was impressed that the narrator divided up explosions into three categories, pointing out that only one category could be relevant to the destruction of the buildings. That made a refreshing change from the other videos I’ve seen which seem to seize upon any explosion as confirmation of deliberate demolition.

    Stubblebine, anyone?

  • fwl

    Clarke

    I’d not heard of Stubblebine before. What were his supposedly controversial comments about the damage to the pentagon. Did he really believe he could walk though walls? Montague Norman Britain’s Governor of the Bank of England thought the same (theosophist I think). I thought it was only us Brits with such curious esoteric establishment beliefs, but nice to see Americans do too.

    Node

    Thanks I take your point about the 2.3. Looking at those videos though lead me to some amusing ones (not re 9/11) of Alan Grayson and also Bernie asking to whom the Fed leant cheap money after the downturn in 2007/08. Bizarrely another 2T there. Such big figures. Then there is a video of Cynthia Mahinney’s 9/11 questioning about whether the 4 war games on 9/11 impacted on response times (military answer no) and whether 9/11 had already been designated as a National Security Special Events Day (military answer D/K). Was it? If so what does it mean?

    Cheers.

  • Clark

    An investigation of war games which coincided with 9/11 was made by Mike Ruppert, detailed in his book Crossing the Rubicon. There’s an interview with him in the 2004 documentary The 911 Report You Never Saw – The Great Conspiracy by Barrie Zwicker. The section begins at 23:15, Ruppert is introduced at 25:39

    https://archive.org/details/GreatConspiracy

    Ex Major General Stubblebine has a Wikipedia page. He worked in Army Intelligence and wanted to develop US capabilities in “psychic warfare”:

    Stubblebine became a proponent of psychic warfare and initiated a project within the U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command (INSCOM), which he commanded from 1981 to 1984, to create “a breed of ‘super soldier'” who would “have the ability to become invisible at will and to walk through walls”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Stubblebine

    I want to know when he first proposed that the Twin Towers were deliberately demolished. I seem to remember an interview with him in a corridor of an airport or somewhere like that, but I don’t know when that was made nor whether that was his first pronouncement on the subject.

  • glenn_uk

    How’s that depopulation conspiracy going? Since the population was just over 5 billion in 1992 when that non-binding and voluntary sustainability plan came out, and it’s knocking around 7 billion now, the plan can’t be quite as diabolical as the conspiracy theorists make out!

  • Clark

    The rumour of a depopulation conspiracy clearly tends to discredit the United Nations and thereby undermine its authority. It has become popular among the US fringe-Right.

    Whether by accident or design, the depopulation mythology serves the interest of US military aggression unrestrained by any higher authority or international law.

1 79 80 81 82 83 134

Comments are closed.