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).
The Saudis hit back at the US accusations.
http://www.activistpost.com/2016/05/saudi-press-just-accused-us-govt-of-blowing-up-world-trade-centers-as-pretext-to-perpetual-war.html
Warnings about article linked above, “Saudi Press Just Accused US Govt of Blowing Up World Trade Centers as Pretext to Perpetual War”; the article states:
– “The report by al-Shammari, translated by the
– Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI)…”
– [and]
– “…as reported by Breitbart”
Ba’al tells us that MEMRI is a pro-Israeli news-warping outfit, so can anyone find another translation please? And Glenn has been highly critical of Breitbart.
That said, 9/11 demolition theories are of obvious propaganda value to Saudi Arabia. And look what else Al-Shammari said further down:
– “Then, when the Soviet era ended, after we Muslims helped the religions and fought Communism on their [the Americans’] behalf, they began to see Muslims as their new enemy!”
This confirms that the Saudi religion was being used to wage proxy war, which is a very dangerous ploy, because religious justifications and incitement of violence towards unbelievers do not just evaporate when your war ends – the US encouraged and cultivated a dangerous ideology, trained and armed its followers, and funded its proponents.
But the claim that the US “sees Muslims as their new enemy” is not true of all cases, is it? The US still supports, funds, arms and trains followers of Saudi-sourced ideology, in Iraq, Libya and Syria, for instance.
– – – –
The article it links to makes this point:
– The legislation had been held up by a known war-hawk, South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham, citing concerns that it would potentially allow for foreign governments to follow suit – a harrowing prospect for a country that uses the CIA to foment revolutions across the globe. Over the recent congressional recess, Graham dropped the hold, according to The Hill.
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/u-s-senate-unanimously-passes-bill-allowing-911-victims-families-sue-saudi-government/
Forensic Structural Engineer and University of Alaska Department Chair and Professor of Civil Engineering Leroy Hulsey explains to a panel of lawyers at the Justice in Focus Symposium in NYC (Sep 10,11) the results of his investigation into the WTC 7 building collapse on 9/11. (See my previous post Sep 12 at 00:58 for more details.)
Attorneys Are Told: “Possibility of WTC 7 Collapsing Due to Fire is ZERO”
Around the 12min mark in the video above Professor Hulsey says that if one of his PhD engineering students submitted a computer model in a student project like the model NIST used to investigate the WTC 7 failure, he would give the student an F.
Hulsey is also on record as saying that steel is a very fire resistant material! This doesn’t inspire much confidence, if it were true every building code in the developed world wouldn’t demand extensive fire proofing on steel structures.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-VNjYXU-CE#t=31
I’m sure his computer model will produce the result he wants it to, that’s one of beauties of computer models.
This is a picture from the 1906 San Francisco fire which shows two steel beams that have been heated enough to soften and collapse hanging across a wooden beam that although charred and degraded is still in place and structurally sound.
http://baliprefabworld.com/images/Fire-resistance/Wood-beam-supporting-steeel-beam.jpg
Please ask Prof Hulsey or AE911 to explain that.
This is little more than a diversion about why the 9/11 attacks occurred, who were the perpetrators were and how could they have done what they did when there were warnings about such attacks occurring, were they allowed to happen to expand the counter terrorist agenda far beyond just the ouster of the Taliban for providing sanctuary to Osama bin Ladin, did the lies about Iraq’s’WMD and the murder of Dr, David Kelly take center stage in investigations rather than what happened on 9/11, etc.
A;long the way, why WTC 7 collapsed has become a leading diversion when it was just a minor incident.
The “official” 9/11 conspiracy theory is like a fishing net; the more holes we can poke in the net the weaker and more useless it becomes.
Here is a video of a former NY City firefighter explaining how NIST refused to follow the national guidelines which recommend a thorough forensic examination of wreckage in a disaster with the symptoms and characteristics seen in the 9/11 building collapses:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxGB2YoGV-I
Never heard of The Boy who Cried Wolf”? Truthers keep pointing out “holes” that turn out not to be. It weakens the cause.
@ Trowbridge H. Ford September 11, 2016 at 13:10
‘Nothing beats former Vice President Dick Cheney blaming Obama for the fallout from the 9/11 attacks in an editorial in the WSJ when he along DCI George Tenet, Senator David Boren, NSA Director Michael Hayden er al. were responsible for causing the vast cockup.
It’s like blaming Churchill rrather than Hitler for starting WWII.’
Winston Churchill: “We will force this war upon Hitler, if he wants it or not.” – Winston Churchill (1936 broadcast)
“Germanys unforgivable crime before WW2 was its attempt to loosen its economy out of the world trade system and to build up an own exchange system from which the world-finance couldnt profit anymore. …We butchered the wrong pig.” – Winston Churchill, The second World War (Bern, 1960)
“The war wasnt only about abolishing fascism, but to conquer sales markets. We could have, if we had intended so, prevented this war from breaking out without doing one shot, but we didn’t want to.” – Winston Churchill to Truman (Fultun, USA March 1946)
I know it is difficult to confirm these quotes, but they ring true…
Hitler had clearly shown his colors after the staged Reichstag fire in 1933, like the neo-cons did after the 9/11 attacks, so Churchill was quite right in wanting to get right of Hitler three years later, but was in no position to do so. It took the incompetence of Franco-Anglo government to make it possible.
WWII was not exactly what we have been told – there was all sorts of help for Hitler (and the Bolsheviks) by US Corporations and banks.
http://www.mit.edu/~thistle/v13/3/oil.html
‘…..Drawn by the seemingly limitless supply of death camp labor, Farben built I.G. Auschwitz, a huge industrial complex designed to produce synthetic rubber and oil. This installation used as much electricity as the entire city of Berlin, and more than 25,000 camp inmates died during its construction. I.G. Farben eventually built its own concentration camp, known as Monowitz, which was closer to the site of the complex than Auschwitz was, in order to eliminate the need to march prisoners several miles to and from the plant every day.
This was the company enthusiastically embraced by Standard Oil as well as other major American corporations like Du Pont and General Motors. I do not, however, state that Standard Oil collaborated with the Nazis simply because I.G. Farben was its second largest shareholder. In fact, without the explicit help of Standard Oil, the Nazi air force would never have gotten off the ground in the first place. The planes that made up the Luftwaffe needed tetraethyl lead gasoline in order to fly. At the time, only Standard Oil, Du Pont, and General Motors had the ability to produce this vital substance. In 1938, Walter C. Teagle, then president of Standard Oil, helped Hermann Schmitz of I.G. Farben to acquire 500 tons of tetraethyl lead from Ethyl, a British Standard subsidiary. A year later, Schmitz returned to London and obtained an additional 15 million dollars worth of tetraethyl lead which was to be turned into aviation gasoline back in Germany…..’
Nigh on impossible to confirm which is suspicious enough. In 1936 Churchill was a back bench MP and not a popular figure so unlikely to have been offered the privilege of making a broadcast. The BBC was very pro-establishment in those days.
Scroll down a bit and there’s a speech he made to Parliament in 1936 which is very different in tone.
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1936/mar/10/defence#S5CV0309P0_19360310_HOC_267
Churchill’s speech you quoted was principally about rearmament. It would not be be unusual to emphasise one aspect in one Forum, and another in a different one. Many politicians are adept at this.
He showed his warmongering side very well when he tried to get the US on board nuking Russia after the war.
@ Trowbridge H. Ford September 12, 2016 at 14:26
‘Hitler had clearly shown his colors after the staged Reichstag fire in 1933, like the neo-cons did after the 9/11 attacks, so Churchill was quite right in wanting to get right of Hitler three years later, but was in no position to do so. It took the incompetence of Franco-Anglo government to make it possible.’
As I commented, there is a big difference between what we were told about WWII, and the reality. Here’s some more food for thought:
Hitler Was Financed by the Federal Reserve and the Bank of England:
http://www.shoah.org.uk/2016/06/13/hitler-was-financed-by-the-federal-reserve-and-the-bank-of-england/
Why Did Churchill Have Josslyn Hay Murdered?
http://henrymakow.com/001523.html
The Amazing Story of the Ark Club – An Exhibition
http://www.librariesni.org.uk/News/Pages/The-Amazing-Story-of-the-Ark-Club-%E2%80%93-An-Exhibition.aspx
In reality, the ‘Ark Club’ was an Occult club; I will try to find out more about it, but was first told about it by an Irish friend, who had no doubts about it’s evil purposes.
My ‘icon’, or whatever it’s called, has also changed form and colour, from a pleasant green to an ‘orrible reddish colour….
Is the Lord Londonderry who founded the Ark Club the same Lord Londonderry who was a conspicuous supporter of the Nazis?
According to the link above, ‘the ‘Ark Club’ was set up by Edith, 7th Marchioness of Londonderry in 1915.’
Yes, there was definitely pro-Nazi feelings in the family, but I don’t know much about it. It’s hard to find info on the web, I suspect because of Churchill’s membership. I’ll post more on it when I can get more info.
Edith Lady Londonderry was indeed married to the Nazi-sympathizing Lord Londonderry.
Ian Kershaw has written a book about it: Making Friends with Hitler: Lord Londonderry, the Nazis, and the Road to War.
‘Trading with the Enemy’ by Charles Heigham;
‘Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler’; ‘Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution’; ‘Wall Street and FDR’; and ‘America’s Secret Establishment’ (about ‘Skull & Bones’ – I haven’t read this one), all by Anthony C. Sutton.
The ‘Elites’ and Banksters just love wars; in fact, there is a saying, ‘All wars are Bankers wars’ that is a pretty safe rule of thumb. That includes our current spate of ‘Regime Change’ (often under ‘R2P’ figleaf) wars.
The a**holes want a ‘One World Government’ (read ‘Gulag’), and drastic culling of the human population of 85-95% of the present numbers.
They are evil, Satanic, and Luciferian (check out the 30-33* Scottish Rite ‘God’).
Guido Preparata (lecturer in Social Sciences, Rome) has written a scholarly book about the ‘Conjuring of Hitler’. Read some excerpts or the review by Peter Dale Scott:
http://guidopreparata.com/
get the book, it is a dense and rewarding read.
Probably not much different from books above; I can’t find Peter Dale Scott’s review.
click on ‘conjuring hitler’ and you should see it listed in menu.
From another review:
Preparata’s major contention is that Hitler himself, and the
Nazi apparatus, were aided and abetted by Anglo-American
elites – ‘the clubs’– who engineered the Weimar crisis, helped
propel Hitler to power, and manipulated the Third Reich into a
confrontation with the Soviets it could never win. Preparata’s
thesis is partly supported by revelations, now being aired, of
close Anglo-American identification with German industry
and finance of the period, political intrigues with Hitler and
Stalin, and even (as with the eugenics movement, widespread
U.S. anti-Semitism, or racial terror practiced in the American
South) the existence of Anglo-American ideological trends
that resembled in some ways the currents in pre-war Nazi
Germany.
Preparata’s reckoning of the Nazi regime — especially its
fabulous initial, and crucial access to bank funding of military-
industrial production (the centerpiece of Conjuring
Hitler) – draws from a profound knowledge not only of conventional
economic theory but also of alternative, anarchist
appreciations of capitalism, including, and most especially,
Thorstein Veblen’s far-sighted comprehension of ‘the clubs’,
the elite networks that steer western free enterprise, and that are
motivated by ‘spirits’ of greed and evil that Veblen alone
identified within the context of socio-economic theory.
There was, of course, the Nazi ‘Business Coup’ of 1933 in the States, which wasn’t carried out because the General they had chosen to lead it, Smedley Butler, instead exposed it in Congress; it was foiled, but no heads rolled!
I believe (I am a Christian) that the ‘top bods’ actually worship Lucifer; there are many writings stating this, including Albert Pike in ‘Morals and Dogma’. Here is one site: http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/symbology/1o5.htm
Jesus himself at least three times in the New Testament refers to the Devil as ‘the Prince of this world’, which is why these detestable specimens get and hold such power.
Linked to 9/11, of course, are the series of lesser ‘False Flag’ attacks and hoaxes.
‘The Tide is Turning: The Official Story Is Now The Conspiracy Theory’:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article45429.htm
Includes a video clearly showing that at 22.30 streets were clear; all the people had run off (at the behest of police, who rodered people to ‘run; terrorists, to a backdrop of shots – doubtless blanks).Meanwhile, back at the beginning, Gutjar was filming a truck rumbling along at 5 mph; he said it had not hit anyone as far as he knew, yet people were running AFTER the truck (bit odd, with all the people supposedly having run AWAY from the truck (in reality, they had run at the police’s orders, to clear the street so the ‘crisis actors’ and others could ‘set the scene’).
http://www.911forum.org.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=173639#173639
Kinda obvious, really, isn’t it?
On late Thursday night there were atrocity reports from Nice. On early Friday morning a message was sent from the Government Cabinet Office to all town halls and public buildings in UK to fly flags at half-mast in solidarity with the victims of Nice! Does this indicate foreknowledge?
No, it doesn’t. But it doesn’t indicate there wasn’t foreknowledge, either.
Architects and Engineers On 9/11! Excellent Must See! https://youtu.be/IYUYya6bPGw via @YouTube
Oh what a spectacle, the MSM getting their knickers in a twist….
‘ Europhysics Article Nears 200,000 Views, Sparks Controversy over Facebook’s Trending News Feed
Share this Groundbreaking Article with Everyone You Know!
Last Friday, while AE911Truth was busy preparing for the Justice In Focus conference, a controversy of sorts erupted after Facebook displayed one of the many articles about our Europhysics News feature on its trending news feed. A reporter from the Washington Post apparently felt this was not an acceptable subject for Facebook to be spreading around — no matter how many people were talking about it.
In a matter of hours, a wave of frenzied pseudo-journalism broke out in the mainstream news media. From the Washington Post to the Daily News, they chastised Facebook for allowing algorithms rather than gatekeeper editors to decide what should be circulated in its trending news feed. Eventually Facebook was forced to remove the news item.
(Unfortunately I cannot copy the Facebook comment)
Amid the firestorm of indignation, only Alan Yuhas of the Guardian bothered to actually look at the original article at the center of the controversy. But, as to be expected, he went to great lengths to smear and minimize the authors. And despite the fact that Europhysics News is published by the prestigious European Physical Society, Yuhas preferred to cite Hearst-owned, pop-science magazine Popular Mechanics and parrot its claim that it disproved such “conspiracy theories” long ago.
Just the Beginning of this Article’s Impact
Yet again the mainstream news media has proven it will pull out all the tricks in its bag to suppress or dismiss the evidence of controlled demolition on 9/11. But that won’t stop millions of decent, concerned citizens around the world from sharing this information with friends, family, colleagues, and even strangers.’
So the ‘Prestigious’ Guardian’s Yuhas (if he ever had, he obviously lost it ) favours the ‘Popular Mechanics’ take rather than a prestigious European Physics Journal? Perhaps he should write for the ‘Dandy’ rather than the Guardian! Maybe his ‘audience’ will be less critical: ‘…And despite the fact that Europhysics News is published by the prestigious European Physical Society, Yuhas preferred to cite Hearst-owned, pop-science magazine Popular Mechanics and parrot its claim that it disproved such “conspiracy theories” long ago….’
Here is the Facebook comment in the Guardian:
‘Facebook fact-check: from Hillary’s health to 9/11, the latest lies we read’:
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/sep/09/facebook-trending-false-news-stories?CMP=share_btn_link
It may not prove, but it certainly indicates foreknowledge, enough to make you suspicious and subsequently confirmed by events.
You’re starting from the wrong end of the stick Craig.
‘America wouldn’t do that’ ‘or too many people would know’,’or I have a friend who knows something about explosives’ is not the right way to look at this. You don’t have an answer and work backwards to try a fit the facts.
For a start. ‘Operation Northwoods’ shows exactly how the govenment would kill innocent people to start a war with Cuba.
Your only starting point is the 9/11 enquiry. Does it stand up to scrutiny? NOPE, it should be in the fiction section with the Bible and Economics. Read some David Griffin books on the subject, look at AE911 (Architects and Engineers for 9/11).
Look on the internated for the commissioners of 9/11, they are non to happy about the ‘investigation’. There is plenty of evidence by people there on that day that should lead you to question 9/11 Official Conspiracy Theory. Evidence that doesn’t make it into official narrative is out there……..
Read upon FBI Coleen Rowley, Siebel Edmonds, the most gagged woman in American history. Look at Susan Lindaeur, nearly chemically labotomised in a military prison for what she knew.
Look at Popular Mechanics (if you must), which dispels(?) some of the Conspiracy Theories and then go and get another dose of David Griffin in his debunking of Popular Mechanics fiasco.
You mention that there would be too many people involved. Well to make sure the Air Force couldn’t do its job on that day, you could for instance run multiple war games, similating plane hijacks and Russia attacks. You could affect the radars using the type of equipment in the air above New York at the time, say that lovely Boeing E4 for which no one decided to get evidence from. People involved in the Conspiracy = Zero.
Maybe you could take a look at this:
http://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/abs/2016/04/epn2016474p21/epn2016474p21.html
Everyone who doesn’t agree with the Official Conspiracy Theory as fact IS NOT a Conspiracy Theorists. FIRST AND FOREMOST THEY DON’T BELIEVE THE LIES AND MISTRUTHS THE INVESTIGATION TOLD ABOUT THAT DAY.
Good post! We are justifiably questioning known liars using hard evidence and facts that have been totally ignored from the official stand point. Anyone with 2 braincells and an internet connection can easily see 2 towers imploding and one being taken down by controlled demolition!
Why do we keep going on about how the buildings finally collapsed when there is no interest in making the people who caused it to happen being exposed, and made to pay for it to some degree?
Because you don’t put the cart before the horse – it is necessary first to prove what crime actually occurred.
That has not been done yet, and the Truth movement are trying to establish that first. THEN we can look for the culprits (though many of us have a good idea of many of them, as we can’t prove it, we generally stay clear of blame-laying).
@ Trowbridge ‘Why do we keep going on about how the buildings finally collapsed when there is no interest in making the people who caused it to happen being exposed, and made to pay for it to some degree?’
If 19 box-cutter highjackers REALLY crashed the planes into the Towers, Pentagon and Pennsylvania Real Estate, then they must be dead as Dodos, and whether or not OBL REALLY had anything to do with it (he denied it, and I believe him), most people would agree he also is dead as a Dodo, then how can anyone make them ‘pay’?
So at least you can’t believe the ‘Official Conspiracy Theory’, or your comment wouldn’t make no sense.
How about sending DCI George Tenet, Vice President Dick Cheney, NSA Director Michael Hayden, Senator David Boren, SG Ted Olson et al. to jail for thinking that the 19 suicide bombers were only hijackers who could be rounded up at LA, and would constitute ousting the Taliban in Afghanistan for harboring OBL?
Heres one for the doubters to consider,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROgYHULrjM0
You mention that too many people would know about 9/11 as raise issues.
Well, they did, just ask all the FBI officials whos evidence was cut from the official report. Ask Colleen Rowley, Seibel Edmons or even Susan Lindaeur.
You mention too many people would need to be involved. Rubbish. Throw up a few war games, fake hijackings, and insert bogus planes onto the radar, keep the air force occupied. Result = no air cover, Number of people in the loop = ZERO.
And William Rodriguez, made a National Hero and given a medal by Bush, for all the people he saved (he was one of only 5 people who had Master Keys to all the North Tower doors; he saved about 15 people personally, and many more by leading First Responders like Firefighter up the stairs and unlocking doors for them. He went back three times into the burning building. The PTB made a tremendous fuss over him, offered him his only TV show, and wanted to get him into politics; BUT – they dropped him like a hot potato when he insisted on saying their were multiple explosions in the North Tower, including an initial massive one in a basement level below him (he was in Basement level one).
His testimony was heard by the Commission BEHIND CLOSED DOORS, and not a word got into the Commission Report; and I think it was 83 other witnesses he had gathered from inside the Tower were not allowed to testify.
William lost two hundred personal friends in the attack, and continues to speak out.
And at one time (like Cynthia McKinney) he was put on the ‘No fly list’ – a National Hero!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmokIGGvSrw
Craig, no need talking to mates in the construction industry. Say What you see on the above video.
I say it shows the building exploding at every level from top to bottom. If you expect me to beilieve the top part of the building above the crash site, is causing this then please outline which of the laws of physics you would also like me to exclude.
Craig
Say what you see:
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=wtc+building+top+falling+over&client=firefox-b&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwinq9D_953PAhXJK8AKHSLICSkQ_AUICCgB&biw=1536&bih=704#imgrc=2E9wEHsHI87xlM%3A
There goes the pancake theory. Symetical collapse from a part of the building falling off…….next you will tell me WMD’s exits in Iraq
Maybe just maybe, the American government didn’t know about the impending 9/11
Yeah right
https://extremeprejudiceusa.wordpress.com/american-cassandra-series-by-michael-collins-3/
Ah, them conspiracy theorists are still out there Craig….keeep laughing.
http://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/abs/2016/04/epn2016474p21/epn2016474p21.html
TOO MANY PEOPLE WOULD KNOW:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5voCxZSwzCM
REALLY?
@ Paul Barbara
On another thread, you said :
“Now you mention it, yes. But ‘unfortunately’ all the incriminating documents were destroyed in Building 7 in 2001 (or so we are given to believe), along with other massive scam documents (oddly, the one part of the Pentagon destroyed just ‘happened’ to be the offices dealing with the $2.3 trillion Rumsfeld had announced missing from the Military accounts…); purely coincidence, albeit mightily convenient for some…”
This 911myths.com page actually makes a pretty convincing case that Rumsfeld is being quoted out of context. There are plenty of better arguments to make. I’ve learned a lot of them from you. But the 2.3 trillion is a red herring. No point in giving the enemy ammunition.
@ Node
Thanks for the acknowledgement. But I still think the $2.3 trillion is important; see Rumsfeld’s response to Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney ( a really great woman; the PTB managed to get rid of her from Congress twice – you can see why in the following video):
‘9-11 Pentagon missing $2.3 trillion Rumsfeld Exposed 9/10/2001’:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-F5NKAMdFc
I have had the honour of meeting her in London. She really is a gem.
Yeah, right! The day before the attacks, Rumsfeld (presumably believed to be a conspirator) deliberately revealed one of the purported motives for what was about to happen.
Presumably, this was so that the Conspiracy could demonstrate their near omnipotent control over public opinion – it was a pre-emptive ploy to dishearten and intimidate the coming 9/11 Truth Movement.
Argument like this is unfalsifiable; like “intelligent design” creationism and its parody, Flying Spaghetti Monster creationism, it cannot be tested because the proposed omnipotence of the perpetrator covers all eventualities. If there is no evidence for something, well, that something still happened and the lack of evidence must prove the overwhelming power of the Conspiracy to cover it up. If there’s evidence against conspiracy, like a prime suspect seemingly revealing motives in advance, it just demonstrates the supreme arrogance of the Conspirators, who “work in mysterious ways”.
“Sorry, anyone applying logic to the evidence proves themselves to be a member of the Conspiracy, if that logic works against our foregone consensus. Consensus will be enforced through peer ridicule and insult” – just like creationist arguments against evolution.
LOL – it’s a veritable ammo-fest!
Just look what has been happening on this thread. The most typical reply to challenge is to gang up and accuse or insinuate that the challenger is working for the conspiracy. It is this, more than anything else, that warrants the derogatory term “conspiracy theorist”.
TFS mentions Colleen Rowley, Sibel Edmonds and Susan Lindaeur, all whistle-blowers with personal testimony they can swear to, none of which personal testimony relates to demolition with explosives. So what does Paul Barbara do? He dwells on a demolition anecdote told to Lindauer by a State Department third-party who wishes to remain anonymous, and introduces William Rodriguez… Go on, check out Rodriguez and tell me how reliable his later stories look. I doubt that Paul Barbara is on the Saudi payroll; maybe he should try sending a bill to Riyahd.
And you, Node; I’ve been wanting to discuss the motion of Building 7 with you for months, because I think you know enough physics to discuss it. But you keep running away.
Almost the whole 9/11 Truth campaign has been taken over by the promotion of demolition theories. Belief in a demolition theory is widely taken as the only acceptable indicator of good faith. It’s also a universal indicator – commenters can propose – nay, insist – that the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man did 9/11 and will be encouraged, so long as (1) he used explosives or thermite on the buildings and (2) he was working under CIA orders. People such as Susan Lindauer and Mike Ruppert were essentially required to pay lip-service to demolition theories to avoid being drummed out of the Brownies. The same thing happens right here on this thread, yet apparently everyone but me and Kempe are blind to it.
An interesting read, but if so why was the Pentagon attacked and why that part of the building. I mean people are unaware of WTC 7 and they hardly think about the Pentagon either as they simply remember through a cloud the twin towers – and even if money was unaccounted for, the military budget soared after 9/11 so as you say why worry about hiding an overspend that was known?
It was the Pentagon attack that made it an ‘Act of War’; and surely you don’t think it a coincidence that the area of the Pentagon that suffered damage (I won’t say ‘was hit by a hijacked plane’, because it plainly wasn’t) was the ONLY part of the Pentagon that had been strengthened to withstand an attack (an adjoining part was just about to be strengthened); it was a ridiculous target for hostile forces to attack (Rumsfeld & Co. where on the opposite side of the building – which would have been a far better target); and many of the dead WERE Naval personnel working on the missing trillions.
A very good documentary on the Pentagon Attack is: ‘9/11 Pentagon Attack – Behind the Smoke Curtain – Barbara Honegger’:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fvJ8nFa5Qk
But be warned, it’s three hours long!
– “surely you don’t think it a coincidence that the area of the Pentagon that suffered damage […] was the ONLY part of the Pentagon that had been strengthened to withstand an attack”?
So did the Conspiracy wish to damage the Pentagon or not? Oh, they wanted to damage it, but not TOO much. Ah. I see. And you just know this, right? Your job is to know it, and everyone else’s role is to meekly accept your theory, or risk being accused of collusion with mass murder, right? Not the slightest touch of arrogance there. Not a bit like the Inquisition or witch-hunts.
– “it was a ridiculous target for hostile forces to attack (Rumsfeld & Co. where on the opposite side of the building – which would have been a far better target)”
This assumes you know the motives of the perpetrators. It assumes the perpetrators knew and cared where Rumsfeld was. But of course, you do know all that, because you are omniscient. Sorry I spoke. So unhelpful.
Total. Raving. Arrogance.
It was no secret where in the Pentagon Rumsfeld’s office was. As I know, having once worked in the Pentagon in one of a row of offices not far from his. We were both in the E Ring, 3d floor. Look it up.
Fair enough, but Paul Barbara is still assuming that the motive and perpetrators are known, BEFORE any effective investigation.
No, it was the Bush administration that branded the attack on the Pentagon an “act of war”.
Acting alone, I could go and blow myself up along with part of the Pentagon. That would be a crime, but not an act of war because there would be no enemy left to make war upon.
No national government claimed responsibility for 9/11 so it was not an act of war. The Bush administration were determined to declare any event like 9/11 an act of war if they possibly could. But they couldn’t turn against Saudi Arabia, their guarantor of a secure oil supply, so they blamed “Islamic extremists” and by implication, Islam itself. They effectively widened the context and pontificated a lot, to disguise the more specific source.
That wasn’t a very clever move, but responses have proven to be so stupid that it has worked.
No it answers the question perfectly. An act of war allows the State to impose its will and override civilian rules.
The targets were symbolic – the WTC represented US commercial dominance, and the Pentagon represented US military dominance.
We can be pretty sure that a fourth target was saved – quite how is a debate difficult to hold, because the majority have partisan attitudes to evidence – but it could be interesting to speculate what that target would have been. Of course everyone will just say “Building 7”, though a counter-argument would be that Building 7 was deliberately brought down precisely to make people think that, thereby disguising the real target.
A political target, or financial? What has been said officially (if anything) and by whom, and was it a forced confession?
WTC 7 was just a decoy! You’re a card Clark.
Yep, a pretty sick ‘Joker’.
No, Building 7’s collapse being a decoy is an argument that could be made by those who believe it was deliberately demolished. Myself, I think Building 7 probably just collapsed after burning all day. Note; “probably”.
It’s not sick, Paul, because Building 7’s collapse wasn’t a tragedy, remember? Even if someone did blow it up, it and the area around it had been evacuated well before.
It’s funny. Everyone agrees that information is missing and that a proper investigation is needed, but certain lines of thought are strongly discouraged, and certain other lines of thought are encouraged. Apparently, I’m “sick” and “a card”. Somehow, “just asking questions” seems to have morphed into “just asking the approved questions”. Actually, it’s not funny; it’s depressing. No one’s forcing you to act like sheep; you’re doing it spontaneously.
So where was that fourth airliner off to before it was destroyed?
And of course you’re ‘forgetting’ that Barry Jennings said when he and another guy were rescued from Building 7, he knew he was ‘walking over dead bodies’. I’ll believe Barry Jennings (RIP) rather than the sh*thawks who said ‘no one died in Building 7’.
Paul, your remark above is so wrong that it indicates biased thinking. I’ll give you a chance to correct it yourself, to show that you can, but if you don’t correct it, I will. Hint: read what I actually wrote.
Second hint: I regard it as quite possible that Jennings’ attention was directed away from corpses as he was led from Building 7.
Paul Barbara is AGAIN insinuating that I’m a member of The Conspiracy, that I’m covering up for mass-murder. He has placed ‘forgetting’ in quotes, suggesting that I have been dishonest. I had neither forgotten, nor ‘forgotten’ Jennings’ account.
Paul Barbara, for this reason, I describe you as a conspiracy theorist. But if you change your behaviour, I’ll change my description, OK?
Incidentally, I’m currently reading NIST NCSTAR 1. I’m on page 98, which is page 148 of the pdf. I’m actually quite impressed with it – though the disclaimers are extensive and it’s heavily sweetened, it looks as though NIST investigated as thoroughly as they could and published the relevant facts. Note I said “looks as though” – NCSTAR 1 is just the top-level findings based on dozens of detailed and specific investigations, each with their own reports which would need to be checked. Oh and there’s Disclaimer 3:
– “Pursuant to section 7 of the National Construction Safety Team Act, the NIST Director has determined that certain evidence received by NIST in the course of this Investigation is “voluntarily provided safety-related information” that is “not directly related to the building failure being investigated” and that “disclosure of that information would inhibit the voluntary provision of that type of information” (15 USC 7306c).
In addition, a substantial portion of the evidence collected by NIST in the course of the Investigation has been provided to NIST under nondisclosure agreements.”
But NIST do seem to have published facts despite some having alarming implications. For instance some components were below specification, and the fire rating of some structural elements was ninety minutes while the evacuation time from being fully occupied was over three hours.
– “A principal factor limiting the loss of life was that the buildings were one-third to one-half occupied at the time of the attacks. NIST estimated that if the towers had been fully occupied with 20,000 occupants each, it would have taken just over 3 hours to evacuate the buildings and about 14,000 people might have perished because the stairwell capacity would not have been sufficient to evacuate that many people in the available time. Egress capacity required by current building codes is determined by single floor calculations that are independent of building height and does not consider the time for full building evacuation”
NIST definitely toned things down and didn’t complain enough about the restrictions upon them, but I doubt that NIST are terribly evil; none of this report seems to be based on confessions extracted under torture, for instance. I really can’t believe they’d have covered up deliberate demolition; they write like engineers, not spooks. But I’ll reconsider if someone can show me sufficient evidence of the relevant investigation teams being selected, manipulated or intimidated.
NIST are no doubt an organisation that you can trust.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KzAp962t2Q
Maxter, you can’t write off the entire NIST report as a cover-up of mass murder because one member of NIST wouldn’t give his e-mail address to someone at a lecture.
I’m not convinced there was much molten steel. A fire-fighter said so, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that what he saw was steel. The Twin Towers appeared to collapse as might be expected, and those collapses look very difficult to arrange with explosives or thermite. Demolition is an exceptional claim so it needs to be supported by very strong evidence.
There are various ways you could proceed to help convince me. You could post links to a reliable source for the thermal data, but so far as I know no one has yet estimated the expected temperatures in the wreckage; maybe there are academic papers about this. You could post a link to an unedited, complete version of the exchange with Dr Gross of NIST – I want to see it unadulterated. You could find papers based on the original papers about iron microspheres and thermitic red chips, which attempt to extrapolate from the dust samples to estimate the overall quantity, but this looks very susceptible to errors because the ingredients of thermite are very common.
From NCSTAR 1:
John L. Gross, Ph.D., P.E. and Therese P. McAllister, Ph.D., P.E. of NIST, Co-Project Leaders of Project 6: Structural Fire Response and Collapse Analysis.
I asked for an unedited version but YouTube had already found one for me; the following seems to be in two parts or has some bits missing, but shows more of what was going on. Gross gave a technical presentation describing computer models of fire, temperature and deformation of floor slabs. A rather off-topic announcement instead of the expected technical question seemed to spark a confrontational mood, but it calmed down. The Truther asked some questions but they were ones we’ve all heard repeatedly and nothing to do with the subject of the presentation. It all seems a bit Monty Python; John Cleese twitchy academic in suit meets Roger Irrelevant from Viz, both acting indignant and self-righteous.
Oops, I forgot the link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khdCzqjYk9o
Here’s a compilation of reports of molten steel, referenced to sources. Unfortunately many of the links are now broken. I’d quite like to read the Leslie Robertson one:
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a091601hotspots
The NASA data doesn’t seem particularly sensational; certainly no temperatures that would melt steel, and most of the site seemed to cool quite rapidly:
http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wtc/evidence/usgs_hotspots.html
See, NIST claim to have modelled the onset of collapse quite thoroughly. They claim to have arranged much imagery of the Twin Towers, both still and video, onto a time-line. They claim that from measurements of this imagery they have calculated the distortion of perimeter columns near the damage zone, and shown it to have gradually increased until the columns were so out of line that they failed.
NIST’s claim that this all fits their computer models isn’t the most important matter. If recorded visual evidence confirms the increasing distortion of columns, it is very likely to be what initiated the collapses. To fake the collapse initiation mechanism, NIST would have had to fake either the visual evidence, the measurements based on it or the calculations, and those should all be checkable… Any takers?
Any takers?
None of the fire fighters expected the Twin Towers to collapse, otherwise they would not have gone in.
But you, and innumerable ‘lay experts’, find it perfectly logical the Towers would collapse.
Something adrift here – maybe you may have a screw or two loose?
Firefighters are not engineers besides it’s their job to take risks to rescue other people.
If firefighters could not assess the likelihood of a burning building collapsing, there would be an awful lot of dead firefighters. As usual, you are talking out of your posterior. Firefighters are trained to understand fires and building collapses, so that risks can be assessed; if a building is judged likely to collapse imminently (and the Towers were NOT assessed to be at risk at all – in fact, one or two firefighters got to the main fire, and radioed back to control saying the fire could be dealt with with just two lines, that’s just two hoses!!!! Blazing inferno, my Aunt Fanny!!
Meant to add ‘ if the building was judged likely to collapse imminently, they would NOT go in. And with towers the height of the Twins, if there was a likelihood of collapse at all, they would not have gone in, because it would take too long to escape. They are not paid to sacrifice themselves, but are expected to take some risks, often heroic.
The Twin Towers were not judged likely to collapse quickly, but they should have been. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey failed in its responsibility to emergency responders and the public. I think compensation was paid, but settled out of court.
Contrary to popular opinion fire proofing in steel framed buildings is not designed to protect the building indefinitely but to prevent it from collapsing for long enough to evacuate everyone inside. In this respect the fire proofing on the WTC performed its purpose despite its age and the damage caused by the impact of the planes. Firefighters would be aware of this and know they had posibly two hours to get everyone out.
http://www.steelconstruction.info/Fire_and_steel_construction
There were also problems with radio communication which caused commanders to lose contact with many of the firefighters who went into the buildings. The repeater system in the WTC, which was required for portable radio signals to transmit reliably inside the buildings, was malfunctioning after the impact of the planes. As a result, firefighters were unable to report to commanders on their progress, and were unable to hear evacuation orders. Also many off-duty firefighters arrived to help without their radios. FDNY commanders lacked communication with the NYPD, who had helicopters at the scene, or with Emergency Medical Service dispatchers. The firefighters on the scene also did not have access to television reports or other outside information which could help in assessing the situation. When the South Tower collapsed at 9:59 a.m. firefighters in the North Tower were not aware of exactly what had happened. The battalion chief in the North Tower lobby immediately issued an order over the radio for firefighters in the tower to evacuate but many did not hear the order due to the loss of radio contact. Because of this, 343 firefighters died in the collapse of the towers.
The command post located across West Street was knocked out when the South Tower collapsed, making command and control even more difficult. When the North Tower collapsed falling debris killed Peter Ganci, the FDNY chief.
Kempe, some of what you’ve written here seems rather uncritical of the authorities. NCSTAR 1 is careful not to criticise anyone, but their figures make it clear that the Twin Towers were bordering on being unsafe. The evacuation facilities were inadequate, the smoke extraction system essentially non-existent, internal building communication vulnerable to failure, water supply and sprinkler systems inadequate for large fires. Some structural components had only 90 minute fire rating, and some fire protection coatings were beneath specification either when installed or due to decay.
When the Towers were completed the construction company had claimed that the Towers could withstand impact from a high-speed airliner. Appropriate techniques to test that claim did not exist at the time, so the claim was essentially fraudulent, but the Port Authority accepted it. Decades later it was tested in practice and failed, directly contributing to the deaths of hundreds of fire-fighters.
Though my own opinion is that 9/11 was an inside job I offer this video about the supposed Israeli art-students who planted the explosives and were photographed doing so. At least you would think it might warrant further investigation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kg7Qt4bV0B8
John, at 4 min 20 sec the narrator calls attention to the boxes labelled BB 18, and claims that BB 18s are “fuse holders that can be used for remote controlled demolition”.
However, at 5 min 17 sec, the Littelfuse catalogue entry for BB 18 is displayed. They’re holders for mains electricity fuses. For mains electrical supply; nothing to do with explosives. Of course, the Twin Towers required thousands of mains electrical fuse holders. Look, here’s the catalogue entry:
http://www.littelfuse.com/~/media/electrical/datasheets/fuse-blocks-and-holders/dead-front-fuse-holders/littelfuse_fuse_block_powr_busbar.pdf
Littelfuse supply electrical parts. They do not supply explosives or anything to do with demolition:
http://www.littelfuse.com/products.aspx
I think you’ll also find that the art group Gelatin were from Germany, not Israel. We’ve already been through all this:
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-83/#comment-580409
but at least you’ve discredited Paul Barbara’s claim that he could prove the boxes contained detonators:
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-84/#comment-580647
That seems convincing enough to me Clark. And that is all most of us are looking for – a proper investigation.
More than 2000 scientists seek answers too. But they are as likely to get answers as they are to get answers why the US claims to be opposed to ISIS yet is training them, supplying them with weapons and bombing their enemy positions.
Lying again, Clarke:
Here is my comment:
‘Paul Barbara
February 26, 2016 at 23:10
@ Clark: ‘“Urban” is quite a common surname and New York has a population of millions; can you substantiate that the Urban of the Gelatin performance art group was in fact involved with the “Dancing Israelis” and Urban Removals..’
No, I can’t; just another of the remarkable set of ‘coincidences’ occurring re 9/11.
‘…And can you substantiate this:
“the cardboard boxes weren’t just any old boxes; the numbers on them show they had originally contained special fuses of the kind used in controlled demolition”
Yes, I could, but it would require too much work for me, seeing as if I presented the links to you, you would dismiss them. Do the work yourself, if it really interests you.’
‘but at least you’ve discredited Paul Barbara’s claim that he could prove the boxes contained detonators:’
As is clear, I did not mention ‘detonators’. So the only one you have ‘discredited’ is yourself, once again, as if you have done already innumerable times on this blog.
No, I decided to use the word “detonators” to avoid confusion inherent in the word “fuses”, since “fuses” can mean either devices that initiate detonation, or it can mean electrical safety components.
It’s you that’s lying, Paul. You claimed you could prove that the boxes contained fuses for demolition, but Littelfuse’s catalogue shows that they contained (holders for) electrical safety components.
Grief… Someone please sympathise; it’s like wading through porridge.
No, I decided to use the word “detonators” to avoid confusion inherent in the word “fuses”, since “fuses” can mean either devices that initiate detonation, or it can mean electrical safety components.
It’s you that’s lying, Paul. You claimed you could prove that the boxes contained fuses for demolition, but Littelfuse’s catalogue shows that they contained (holders for) electrical safety components.
Grief… Someone please sympathise; it’s like wading through porridge. I even had to post this defence of myself twice!
So if the Twin Towers fell because of structural failure resulting from normal office fires, and the fire prevention measures supposedly built into the buildings – smoke extraction, water supply and sprinkler systems, fire protection coatings – were inadequate or non-existent, and this is confirmed in the NIST report, then the insurance company refused to pay out. Right?
I doubt it. You could look into it. I’d expect various arrangements of payments to silence complaints. But according to NCSTAR1, “the buildings were one-third to one-half occupied at the time of the attacks”, so in the actual event, the deficiencies of the emergency systems probably didn’t make much difference on 9/11.
NCSTAR 1 doesn’t say so, but I expect that the deficiencies in the fire resistant coatings contributed to early collapse. NCSTAR 1 doesn’t blame anyone but it clearly states the deficiencies. The various fire resistant coatings were required to be rated for 1 hour 30 minutes, two hours or three hours depending upon application, but a minority of samples were found not to meet even those specifications. The Towers required over three hours for evacuation from full occupancy due to insufficient stairways. The Twin Towers would have been death traps in the event of a large fire.
Node, read NCSTAR 1. If the photographic and video evidence is as they claim, the inward bending of the uprights is all verifiable and therefore the collapse initiation mechanism has been identified. If NIST are covering up, they’d need to withhold the visual evidence, or fudge the calculations. I’ve read various criticisms of NIST but don’t remember them being accused of that. If you have information to the contrary, please post links.
Clark, you are an intelligent man. Your intelligence should tell you that the twin towers were a bottom up detonation. There is no other way they could have been demolished into their own footprint. Assuming an office fire had caused the collapse the four main corners would not have buckled all at the same time so the first to go would be the way the above sections would have fallen – that is at an angle outwards towards that corner. If you have ever played Jenga you will know roughly what I am getting at.
It is clear nonsense to laymen, but also to engineers. There needs to be an inquiry. So why not?
John,
I have linked to a video showing collapse of one of the twin towers.
Say What you See in the video mentioned above.
The video clearly shows that the building did not collapse into their footprint. Photo’s of the event afterwoods show nearly zero material in the footprint of the towers. In the video mentioned it clearly shows the tower exploding from top to bottom. All the concrete in being pulverised.
No, the concrete was not all pulverised. Look at the pictures at the bottom of this article:
http://911encyclopedia.com/wiki/index.php/World_Trade_Center_Concrete
You can clearly see concrete rubble; indeed, the whole area was mostly grey. You can also read a quote from Captain William McLaughlin, FDNY Engine 312, that he was knocked to the ground by a lump of falling concrete.
Why don’t people bother checking such statements?
But thanks for pointing out that the Twin Towers didn’t “fall into their own footprints”. That false claim gets repeated again and again.
John, ignore claims made by “Truther” sites because they’re so often wrong.
Look at the aftermath photos or watch the videos of the collapses, for God’s sake. The debris of the Twin Towers was strewn over a wide area; you can easily see it falling outside the buildings’ footprints on the collapse videos. “Into their own footprints” is a ridiculous claim.
Watch the collapse videos. You can clearly see that the Towers collapsed from the impact zones downwards – why on Earth do you claim it to have been demolition from the bottom upwards? You’re asking readers to believe the opposite of what happened!
John wrote: – “There needs to be an inquiry. So why not?”
Try reading NCSTAR 1. Don’t criticise from ignorance. The building collapses are one of the better investigated aspects of 9/11. Read NIST’s proposed collapse mechanism; only then will you be in a position to criticise it, and maybe I won’t have to do all the work.
Some ‘Conspiracy Theorists’ suggest explovsives were found in the debri from the Twin Towers.
This May/Maynot be the case.
1) The alledged ‘Conspiracy Theorists’ say such explosive material is evident, through scientific experiment, in the dust as a result of 9/11. They suggest Thermite/Thermate all something of similar chemical makeup.
2) People following the Official Conspiracy Theory suggest this is not true.
3) It has beeen suggest that thermite/thermate cutters were used to cut still members prior to being taken away. This may suggest a possible explanation of thermite/thermate residue BUT does not exclude the use of such material in the building as explosives.
Ah, god bless the Official Conspiracy Theory, American Exceptionalism at its best.
Thermite is not an explosive it’s an incendiary. It’s not used in demolitions these days, AE911 had to go back to 1936 to find an instance where it was and then 1,500 lbs was needed to bring down two columns of a relatively lightweight fairground ride. Care to calculate how many tons would’ve been needed to destroy the WTC?
The “something of a similar make up” was iron oxide, aluminium and sulphur which undoubtedly came from the building’s structure and fittings.
Kempe, I suspect that isn’t a good argument, because I’ve seen the YouTube demonstrations of metal being cut by using thermite. The assertion that thermite could only cut downwards was also disproved.
A better argument is that thermite burns too slowly for the rapidly sequenced cuts that would be needed to fake a gravity driven collapse. Thermate can be suggested as a faster alternative. Now I don’t know how quickly thermate reacts, but if it’s too slow it can’t fake a gravity-driven collapse, and if it’s too fast it should produce audible and visible blasts that weren’t observed. My guess is that there’s no rate in-between that’s just right, because the collapses happened quite rapidly so the sequencing would need to be too accurate to be achieved without blasts.
I should abandon these lines of argument now and return to checking NIST’s investigation of the collapse initiation mechanism. If that all checks out, there is simply no reason to suspect demolition of the Twin Towers.
The overriding problem with explosive residues in the dust is that it gives no indication of where it came from.
Having said that, the claims were based on only four dust samples, I think. I’ve never seen any assessment of where those samples were collected, who provided them, or of how much explosive or thermite the samples would imply across the whole site. Yes, I’d rather NIST had agreed to test their own dust samples, but even if found to contain such residues it wouldn’t prove deliberate demolition. Various claims of explosions and explosives have been made, none of which implied controlled demolition – in at least one case, the WTC complex wasn’t even the alleged target.
One area I have not looked at is the rather mariculous piloting skills of one of least able people to pilot a plane never mind walk, to carry out a decending 8000 ft drop through 330 degrees, missing various obsticles, missing the Pentgoons top brass, all whilst conveniently hitting the area that was investigation $2.3 trillion in missing monies at the DOD, in a part of the building publically to be known as being renovated, as mentioned the day before 9/11.
Anyways, I believe the FBI was to investigate.
I bet the photos from the FBI at the scene were merticuous, logging were various parts of plane, bodies were found.
I bet the FBI recovered tons and tons of reckage…………
Bet there again, I bet not.
Want to know if the Pentagoons were hit by a Boeing? Lets see if the amount of recovered metal is what is expected, or did America exceptionalism strike again.
God bless the Federal Bureau of Incompetence.
The pilot was probably a Saudi military pilot undergoing further military flight training at military bases in the US, under the secret 1945 US-Saudi Quincy Agreement in which the US undertook to provide military training to Saudi Arabia. There are reports of this but the media didn’t exactly make much fuss about it; in fact counter-interviews were produced to cast doubt upon it.
– “U.S. military sources have given the FBI information that suggests five of the alleged hijackers of the planes that were used in Tuesday’s terror attacks received training at secure U.S. military installations in the 1990s”
http://europe.newsweek.com/alleged-hijackers-may-have-trained-us-bases-152495
Various FBI investigations were halted by orders from on high. Do you want the links? Should I even bother or are you committed to ignoring such matters?
Wow, you really are a foul mouthed punk aren’t YOU!
Sick of people ignoring you becuase of your whinning and shouting throughout your life?
TFS, I assume your reply ended up under the wrong comment. No, usually I only swear when I get angry. In the context of this thread I have various reasons for being angry. One of them is that you’ve be ridiculing me in public for some weeks, and that various commenters have been publicly accusing me of covering up for mass murderers.
Another is that I actually care passionately about truth, justice, and peace. There will not be peace without justice, and there can be no justice without truth. So it pisses me off when conspiracy theorists (I use the forbidden term because they earn it, over and over again), both driven by and in service to their own egos, repeatedly, insistently and with overbearing self-righteousness, corrupt the truth, thereby impeding the route to peace.
Still, I doubt you can look past your prejudice to see the damage you’re doing, so just carry on having fun watching YouTube.
He didn’t miss all the obstacles, he took down the street lights and what would be more remarkable would be carrying out a 330 degree turn WITHOUT losing any height.
Grief, the either/or thinking is depressingly stupid. Apparently, I support “the official story” because I think the Twin Towers collapsed due to damage and fire. But I don’t support the “official story”, in fact, I don’t even know it; I’ve never read the 9/11 Commission Report. But I’ll guess that it doesn’t say the US was hit by their own ally’s personnel who were in the US receiving military training. I’ll guess that it says nothing about the hijackers being issued US visas on CIA orders, despite the objections of diplomatic staff. I bet it holds no one responsible for stopping investigations into the hijackers, nor for the incredible failure of the air defences that day, nor for the destruction of records, etc. etc. etc.
The many complex matters regarding 9/11 have all been reduced to a question of whether any given commenter believes in “controlled demolition” or not. This, apparently, is the litmus test of any commenter, the only thing that matters. Those who believe are fearless truth-seekers, and those who don’t are part of the conspiracy.
Fucking idiot humans, no wonder your entire planet is off down the drain.