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).
‘Prof. Mark Crispin Miller on 9/11 ‘: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3aTqOYN-b4U
Professor of media studies at New York university. I do hope he doesn’t stray too far from his field of expertise, and I certainly agree that proprietary voting machines are a great danger to democracy. I’ll watch it later.
I thought that was a good lecture right up to about 17:30 where, most unfortunately, Crispin strayed from his area of expertise and started supporting demolition theory.
It saddens me, but the covert operators and their propaganda wing just outclass us. The anticipate the spectrum of responses and lay very effective traps.
The conspiracy-theorist’s mindset and thinking undoubtedly exist, and this is what makes it such an effective propaganda tool. All the most effective propaganda has elements of fact, without which it lacks traction.
Various facts demonstrate the existence of the conspiracy-theorist mindset. The group(un)think. The distortion and invention of “facts” to support the favoured theory. The constant innuendo, suggestions and direct accusations that anyone challenging the groupthink must be paid agents of the conspiracy – this more than anything. Just put yourself in my position. I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve been accused of being part of the (alleged) 9/11 conspiracy. That I am a conspirator is undeniably part of my accusers’ theory, therefore, from my point of view, those who accuse me are clearly conspiracy theorists.
The appropriate response is not, as Crispin suggests, to dismiss anyone who refers to conspiracy theorists as being part of the conspiracy. To do so is to be tricked into playing on the opposition’s field. The more effective response is to raise one’s game and rise above the conspiracy theorist’s mindset – accept the criticism as valid, and then transcend instead of confirming it.
Twin Towers demolition theory is a gift to the propagandists, some of whom could well have seeded it in the first place. It’s an incredibly effective false lead. It causes the pro-investigation campaign to discredit itself widely, not least by accusing all and sundry innocent parties who all have family, friends and associates. It multiplies the necessary size of the (alleged) conspiracy out of all proportion, creating vast cover.
Fifteen years – the pro-investigation movement are clearly outclassed by the propagandists. This saddens me deeply.
Prof. Mark Crispin Miller : “I would go so far as to say that everyone who uses the phrase “conspiracy theory” in this laughing dismissive way is a witting or unwitting CIA asset.”
Unarguable, given the documented origin of the phrase.
So what should I call those who theorise that I’m part of a conspiracy? I see that the CIA are cleverer than you, Node. Bridle that ego and raise your game. Unless you think your hurt feelings matter more than 9/11, of course.
53 Admitted False Flag Attacks:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/53-admitted-false-flag-attacks/5432931
‘Not Theory … Admitted Fact’!!!!!
Wonder what the ‘normal suspects’ will do with this comment? Probably ignore it, as it doesn’t accord with their ‘Weltanschauung’.
Or maybe ‘OK. so it happens 95% of the time – but that doesn’t mean it happened on 9/11 (7/7; Boston, Sandy Hook, Oklahoma City, Nice, Charlie Hebdo etc. ). Perhaps not, but what are the odds??
What do you mean “95% of the time”? That there have only been 56 attacks since 1931?
Still, this is what we need a proper investigation for.
Dunno why you think I’d object. Presumably just because I reject demolition of the Twin Towers, and because I insist upon some evidence to support allegations – the alternative to the latter being just to join in all and every bleat that happens to contradict the mainstream; is that what you want?
Going back to the video with Bennette in Building 7:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLqGRv7CQlc
I’m far more interested in the first man seen, on the left side of the street in the AFT jacket, the most hostile subject I’ve seen on any 9/’11 video. If he or any other AFT agents appear in other such videos, please link and post a time reference.
Who decides which attacks we have to say are false flag to remain acceptable with the crowd? What about the attacks in Turkey, Baghdad, Kabul or Mumbai? Or don’t they count because they didn’t happen in white people’s countries?
Well many of the 53 are debatable or just ideas that were never put into practice but just because there have been false flag attacks in the past is not evidence that 9/11 or any other event was an inside job. Each case has to stand on it’s own merit.
Where did the 95% figure come from?
The constant bullying from Truthers is most distasteful.
“Agree without question or you’re a paid shill.
Agree unreservedly or you’re a stupid sheeple.
Only conspirators would ask for evidence
WAKE UP, IDIOT!”
I personally welcome dissenting opinions. I have stated on several occasions that I highly value Kempe’s and Resident Dissident’s contribution to this blog. They reduce the bullshit level. I believe I learn more from an argument than a monologue.
I therefore do not want you to stop commenting. But neither do I want my comments to be drowned out by a never-ending whine of self-pity. Show some self restraint. And while you’re at it, stop being a hypocrite. On the previous page, you called me a liar, a bullshitter and an egotist, as well as repeatedly ascribing views to me which I do not hold. Imagine your reaction if I said such things to you (which I never have).
There are 204 comments on that page. 131 of them are yours. In other words, you made nearly twice as many comments as everybody else put together. It’s stifling discussion. Show some respect for others. You have a good mind, use it positively.
It’s fair comment. And if you go back to previous pages it is a similar pattern. I too would not like Clark, who I agree is an intelligent man, to stop commenting. However I suspect many have stopped commenting on here because of his personal crusade to prove that the twin towers and Building 7 were brought down by fires has become overbearing. I saw footage, yesterday I think, on Russia Today concerning the bomb planted a year ago in Egypt and taking mainly Russian passengers home to St Petersburg.
https://www.rt.com/news/364800-sinai-russian-plane-crash-year/
It proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that a fire could not cause a building of structural steel. The plane was full of fuel and had only just set off. One of the engines in the above video had partially melted (about 2 minutes in this 6 minute news item). What the acceleration of the engine in free-fall could be likened to is a air to a furnace increasing the heat. You can see the damage done. There is absolutely no way a fire could have melted the girders of these towers. Anybody who cannot see this does not have a mechanical brain. They should write poetry, or take up sculpture.
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/1DKin/Lesson-5/Representing-Free-Fall-by-Graphs
Johm, I don’t know what happened to Building 7. Please do not misrepresent my position. I have described my thinking about Building 7 at great length, but maybe you missed it, so I’ll repeat. I have no explanation for Building 7’s collapse and the circumstances around it which I have found satisfactory. Like Danny Jowenko, who had a working lifetime’s experience with explosive demolition, I can’t explain it.
It proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that a fire could not cause a building of structural steel (to collapse).
Murphy was an engineer. Please quote his famous law.
But you’ll ignore that. Never trust an engineer who claims something is indestructible.
I know the reason I ignored your previous references to Murphy’s Law and suspect others did so for the same reason. In mathematics and physics a law is something held to be true (usually with proof) unless disproved, for example, the various Newton laws. I have always disregarded Murphy’s Law.
First it contains no logic to say if something can go wrong it will go wrong (think of surgical operations). If surgeons were to work on that principle where would we be?
Secondly when I was serving my apprenticeship it was quoted derogatively to denigrate Irish people as being thick. And there was a lot of anti-Irish racism, including jokes that would not be acceptable today. Edward Murphy might have been an engineer but to say if something can go wrong it will go wrong is nonsense. Your Austin Allegro can go wrong, occasionally it does go wrong, mostly modern cars are reliable. They are designed by engineers.
Captain Ed Murphy was a US American on an aircraft crash test team at Edwards Air Force Base in 1949. It remains to be explained why he failed to collect his laundry, but presumably something went wrong.
Everything goes wrong eventually, but events can hasten the outcome. Meditate upon the meaning of “maintenance”.
Hear, hear Node.
Take any page over the past few months and the same ratio of Clark to everyone else runs about the same. When I consider his regular defamatory use of terms like ‘Truther’ and ‘conspiracy theorist’, alongside his frequent abuse (apparently I can ‘go fuck myself’ or ‘try to find my arse with my hands’); then I hear the accusation of bullying, I just think,
#Bullyshit
Yes Mog, and I’m sure you did absolutely nothingto provoke it. Do link for all to see; I don’t mind scrutiny.
“Conspiracy theorist” I’ve explained. If you don’t like “Truther”, what would you prefer? I don’t actually regard it as derogatory in itself, but some label is needed.
All your complaints pale into insignificance in comparison with the constant accusations of collusion with mass murder.
If you don’t want to be called conspiracy theorists, stop accusing all who challenge you of being part of the conspiracy. Simple and logical.
If you don’t want to be called liars and bullshitters, stop warping the facts, and call out the bullshit from within your own ranks instead of letting it pass. Likewise if you want me to comment less; do your own cleaning and you won’t have to put up me doing so much of it – God knows it’d be a relief. But you won’t, because conspiracy theorists conspire, and psychologically project conspiracy onto those they see as opponents.
Node, your ego problem. You see yourself as fearlessly facing the truth, but Relative B as lacking such courage and becoming angry due to being afflicted with cognitive dissonance. Node is strong but Relative B is weak.
But you’ve painted the failings on your own side out of the picture, which is another effect of false ego. On this thread, you misrepresented Building 7’s fall as 6.5 seconds by discounting the fall of the east mechanical penthouse, and you misrepresented the collapses of the Twin Towers as perfectly symmetrical. You warped the facts because you wish to influence, but ego both rationalises the deception and hides the motivation from your consciousness. Relative B was likely angry at being misled rather than through weakness, and maybe also senses your unconscious feelings of superiority.
The very recent Dubai hotel fire…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E24RJkt8210
And going back to 2013, a similar skyscraper fire in Russia…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izNDNHK3_N8
And going back to 2005, the Windsor tower fire in Madrid…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4MjsVnasLA
All of these (steel framed) skyscrapers had much, much more severe fires than the WTC towers, yet none of them collapsed (although the Windsor tower lost some of its top floors).
I found it notable that the recent Dubai hotel fire was barely reported by the MSM, because otherwise viewers might go *duh*, why is that skyscraper burning like a firework and still stands, whereas both WTC towers suffered complete collapse after relatively minor damage to the upper floors?
It’s because the WTC towers were ‘special’ and ‘different’.
Cue the voodoo science…
(actually, the WTC towers were structurally much stronger than the examples I give above, as many on this thread have pointed out)
RobG, the third Spain video is the most convincing proof, the reason being that the fire started low down. Does anyone doubt that in normal circumstances fire burns upwards? All of them are convincing to engineers or scientists. But the third is the most convincing.
It will be ignored in support of the mainstream argument that fires can destroy structural steel buildings from the top down. They can’t. If they could Resident Dissident would be on here in a flash because he lost a cousin in the collapse
I have watched the videos over and over again. I have seen the second-round of detonations blowing out of the building before the dust cloud obscured further detonations in a clearly pre-planned operation. Some people cannot put on the safety-helmet called ‘Engineer’ and look at the truth.
I do not know what the truth is but I know it is not what we have been told. Therefore the world needs an investigation. It is owed an investigation. Hope Trump keeps his promise over this.
There are no ejections from the Twin Towers before the top parts begin to descend.
Air has to go somewhere.
Have you abandoned the “nukes in the basement” theory you were pushing a week or so ago?
I abandon no theory, not nukes, not holograms, not bombs, not nano thermite, not even fire (but that is the most unlikely with an almost zero chance of being right. Have you changed your tunnel-vision version of events in line with what NIST says?
Fire AND EXTENSIVE DAMAGE, John. Stop weighting everything in your preferred direction.
But none of these buildings had severe damage.
Think about it. Fire weakens steel, but it also lightens the load as material burns away. There is therefore a critical period in which the steel has been weakened, beyond which (if the structure survives long enough) the load lightens and probability of collapse decreases.
But none of this makes the slightest odds. Any building can collapse if it is insufficiently robust for the conditions it encounters. Therefore, collapse itself is not evidence for demolition. Since no other evidence specific to demolition of the Twin Towers has been found, and evidence for damage, fire and buckling are present, failure causing collapse is reasonable whereas demolition is not.
It is therefore UNJUST to accuse NIST, FEMA, the international academic physics and engineering community, the New York firefighters, Julian Assange, Craig Murray, Noam Chomsky, Kempe and myself of collusion with mass murder. That’s a hell of a list you’ve accused, so the CIA are entirely justified in calling you conspiracy theorists.
The Dubai hotel fire was well covered by the MSM. The difference between that fire, the Grozny fire and the WTC is that both the fires in Dubai and Grozny largely involved the flammable outer cladding; structural elements and the interiors of the buildings were barely affected. At Dubai most of the hotel guests had their belongings returned to them intact. Both buildings also had modern levels of fire protection which remained undamaged.
The Windsor Tower is a very interesting case. The building was undergoing major reconstruction and was therefore unoccupied and therefore unloaded. Interestingly a major part of the work was to add fireproofing, this had been completed up to the 17th floor but the floors above were still unprotected at the time of the fire. You may have noticed that it was the unprotected floors that collapsed and it was only the fact that the 17th floor was a heavily constructed technical floor that prevented further collapse.
http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/CaseStudy/HistoricFires/BuildingFires/default.htm
Feel free to dismiss the above as “voodoo science” but do try to explain WHY you think it’s voodoo science.
Inward buckling was seen to initiate collapse.
Inward buckling is not consistent with explosives.
Further, the conspiracy theorists will conspire to let John Goss’s misrepresentations pass – “melting” of steel, the role of fire in the collapses – and may then complain that I’m commenting too much.
The insults continue – “voodoo science”, “engineer’s hat”, but if I should retaliate…
It is not “buckling inwards” as such but the whole upper section is rotating. There will be bending on the opposite side.
Buckling would be the correct description if it occurred along all facades
Call it what you will; here it is occurring immediately before collapse, and well before any ejections, on two façades:
https://www.metabunk.org/the-pre-collapse-inward-bowing-of-wtc2.t4760/
I think “buckling” is appropriate for individual members such as box columns. “Bowing” seems more appropriate when considering a surface or plane.
Do you agree that the load bearing capacity of a column decreases rapidly as it deviates from being straight?
Lots of eye witness testimony quoted and linked from here:
https://sites.google.com/site/911stories/accountsoftowerstructuralinstabilityande
“Do you agree that the load bearing capacity of a column decreases rapidly as it deviates from being straight?”
Yes, that is why the upper section should have continued to rotate. The section below the rotation point was perfectly straight and not compromised and should not have disintegrated
But any rotation of the sections above the damaged sections (short of a 90 degree twist!) ensures that the columns could never line up again. Furthermore, rotation ensures descent, which in turn ensures that a dynamic load will be applied to the structure beneath, and that dynamic load must inevitably be far more than the static load was.
The floor assemblies were incapable of supporting merely the weight of the sections above the damaged zones, let alone the dynamic load inevitable from descent. Any rotation of the upper sections therefore makes overall collapse inevitable.
Node, you (rather aggressively) pursued Kempe claiming that building standards had not been improved in response to the building collapses on 9/11, and Maxter claimed you’d “knocked the ball out of the park” or similar.
– “Status of NIST’s Recommendations Following the Federal Building and Fire Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster, August 8, 2011”:
https://www.nist.gov/sites/default/files/documents/el/disasterstudies/wtc/WTCRecommendationsStatusTable.pdf
Thirty recommendations. The very first recommendation is about increased resistance to progressive collapse. Many are about improved fire resistance. You also asked about uprating the thermal performance specification of structural steels, and that is also covered.
You Clark, and Kempe, cannot get your heads round Newton’s third law of equal and opposite actions and reaction. It is the only place to start. You keep churning out the same old, same old pap thinking you will convince people rather than drive them away. I’m out of here.
I drew you a diagram. The FLOOR ASSEMBLIES were INCAPABLE of providing sufficient reaction:
http://www.killick1.plus.com/odds/diag.png
Node, you (rather aggressively) pursued Kempe claiming that building standards had not been improved in response to the building collapses on 9/11 …
… and this, Clark, is why I avoid arguing with you and shall again forthwith. I believe that you deliberately misrepresent me in order to stimulate a response, preferably an angry one that you can whine about. You waste my time by forcing me to correct the nonsense you post about me. Over and over. Enough – I strongly request that from now on you do not address me or refer to me in posts, and I’ll reciprocate. OK? And in the event that you don’t accept my deal ….
Right, before I go ….
My point to Kempe was not about building standards, it was about building regulations. Quote :“If normal office fires were the cause of this triple catastrophe, surely there will have been wholesale changes in building regulations?” You try to refute my point with : 10 years later NIST made some recommendations. I would say that the lack of urgency rather underlines my point, and that no significant change in regulations resulted from NIST’s recommendations clinches it.
I asked Kempe to cite any significant change in building regulations as a result of 9/11. He couldn’t. And when he tried to shift the focus as you have just done, I said “Never mind your vague ‘standards have been improved’ [….] Three buildings catastrophically collapsed which shouldn’t have done according to their construction standards. Show me specific examples of where lessons learned have been applied to subsequent constructions.” I asked him several times but he didn’t/wouldn’t/couldn’t name one. I’m still asking, Kempe. Cite one significant change in building regulations that resulted from 9/11.
But please note, Clark, I’m not asking you. As I had cause to remark in the middle of that conversation with Kempe, “Clark. The reason that my question was addressed to Kempe and not you is that he debates without including venomous personal comment.
Here’s where it started :
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-97/#comment-627719
You’re welcome to the last word, Clark, but I shan’t respond. You’ve just wasted an hour of my life – no more.
Regulations/standards. Oh sorry, I used the wrong word.
– “10 years later NIST made some recommendations”
Read the document, oh lazy one. The NIST investigation didn’t start until 2002, and took three years. The recommendation was made in 2007. NIST only recommend; some industry body implements; there’s some back-and-forth to go through. That’s the system in the US. Go look it up.
– “Never mind your vague ‘standards have been improved’…”
Like I said, rather aggressive, as if Kempe were to blame – but of course you DO think Kempe carries some blame, because you’re a conspiracy theorist. But you can fix that if you bother trying.
In the US, states make the building regulations, called “building codes”. NIST is a national body, so NIST just make “model codes”. It is up to states to enact actual regulations into state law, which they base upon the national “model codes”.
I discovered this when I looked into Node’s comment to Kempe. If Node had researched for his own comment, he would have saved some of my time.
Node didn’t link his aggressive response to Kempe:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-97/#comment-627869
– “Yawn …. I suppose I’d better correct Kempe’s misrepresentation of what I said before it gets taken down and used against me”
As usual, “venomous comments” are OK, so long as they’re directed at commenters who challenge demolition theory.
Over the last 24 hours it’s emerged that the FBI are going to lay charges against Hillary Clinton, and they’re probably going to do it before the election next Tuesday (the FBI re-opened their criminal investigation into Clinton a week ago). It makes sense to charge Clinton before she becomes President, in order to avoid the constitutional crisis that happened with Nixon.
None of this is being reported by the mainstream media (you may have noticed that Hillary has almost completely dropped off the front pages today), because we now live in very closed/corrupt societies which the MSM play a large part in.
It seems that some kind of coup has occurred within the US power structure.
Once Hillary has been dealt justice, maybe they’ll get onto the 9/11 gang next, including all those who continue to foister the hoax on us.
Oh, and I should give a link to back-up what I’m saying about criminal charges being laid against Hillary Clinton. This is the very latest…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btsVQwf4VgU
– “…maybe they’ll get onto the 9/11 gang next”
Bush and his cronies were Republicans. Trump’s a Republican too, so don’t hold your breath. It’s property billionaire Trump who helped lead you towards stupid demolition theories. It’s his fossil fuel cronies who benefit when you ascribe the effects of global warming to the Fukushima disaster. If Trump gets in he might knobble the courts even worse and have the collapses ruled to be demolitions. You lot will be celebrating as the superpower with the most nukes abandons what little is left of honesty. NIST’s engineers rather than politicians will be strung from lampposts.
I just hope they cancel the election and get Bernie Sanders back.
I am posting this because it is newly out. Watch it! Listen to it! It is the real reason for 9/11 and the wars like the oncoming one with Russia and Iran if we do not collectively wake up. It points the finger at who the perpetrators of 9/11 were, the reasons for it, and who had the most to gain.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBAlxJVwMgc&feature=share
John Goss’s link is to a Chris Bollyn video accusing Israel of 9/11 with precisely ZERO direct evidence. No testimony, no documentary evidence, and no physical evidence. It presents a little direct and much circumstantial evidence for Israeli foreknowledge, but none for perpetration. It also contains much misinformation and misleading selective editing, including the usual discredited support for demolition of the Twin Towers.
Or better than reading Clark’s misleading comment watch the video for yourself. There is nothing in it in dispute with Newton’s Third Law, unlike most of Clark’s prejudiced comments on behalf of those who created war all over the planet. Make your own judgment. Don’t let Clark drive you away from (his) thread. 😀
This is Chris Bollyn on WTC6 and the explosion not reported at the time.
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Document:What_Caused_the_WTC_6_Crater
John, thank you for bringing up WTC6, which hardly ever gets discussed.
What happened to WTC6 is very convincing evidence of the ‘directed energy weapons’ theory. Just look at the photos…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4FkO5ry1uo
So rarely gets discussed RobG that until today, thanks to Clark’s mention of Chris Bollyn, I had not known about it. Now I am really fascinated because it shows something scientifically unbelievable. Clark might believe it though, and I have no explanation for it. All the concentration has been on three buildings. I a brief amount of time I have come to the conclusion that an explanation of the event of 9/11 can be deduced from the least talked about buildings, WTC5 and WTC6. More later.
But in the meantime can someone give me an explanation for the beam twisted at least 180 degrees and still pointing vertical next to the custom’s officer? Thanks. Hope the link works.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10155332026167646
The way everything is smashed downwards inside, it looks as though something heavy fell on it. Like WTC1 for instance. This picture would seem to confirm that:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3b/September_17_2001.jpg
I can’t find the video Bollyn refers to. I expect he’s just lying, because I found lies on his site very quickly.
John Goss, do you maintain that I am lying, and that my intention in doing so is to encourage war?
You know I would not think that of you.
Look at WTC 6 and WTC 5 and give me your expertise because they trouble me, especially WTC 6.
Oh. Thanks. It just seemed to be the meaning of your comment at 20:58 above, where you called my comment “misleading” and “on behalf of those who created war all over the planet”. As usual, I’m mystified about human nature.
Clark while you appear to be very concerned about being accused of lying it does not stop you from accusing others, and Bollyn is the latest victim. He is not lying. The video is there. You not being able to find it does not surprise me. Nothing fell on WTC6, or if it did, where did it go. The floor is apparently there and even the roof appears to be there on one photo.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVs4oMQEpvs
Sorry; please link to the video, and tell me where I should have found it. Please be careful to be accurate and specific, because this is costing me too much time.
The video I’m requesting the location of is the one Bollyn claims shows an explosion at WTC6.
WTC6 was immediately adjacent to the North Tower and could not have avoided being hit when WTC1 collapsed. The video “Surreal Pictures” etc which RobG linked clearly shows sections of Tower perimeter box column / spandrels inside the wrecked WTC6.
The WTC6 section of “Surreal Pictures” etc is based on ONE still photograph. This is really poor. If you think there is a mystery about WTC6, you need to post photographs from before and after its destruction, and preferably some sort of plans of the building. It’s no use asking “where did this material go?” unless we know what was there beforehand.
Could be this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZBhWRzt-aA
But there are so many unanswered questions it is only a small part of the scenario. Look Clark, when you refer to us Truthers as Truthers in the way you do it is as bad as the establishment of the day referring to Friends as Quakers. Doesn’t bother me but you might like to think how your own image comes across.
I thought it might be that. That wasn’t taken at 09:03 at the time of the second aircraft strike. It’s WTC2 collapsing with WTC1 in the way. The “explosion” is dust welling up after the collapse of WTC2.
People may not like “Truther” but some label is needed for this group who never challenge each other’s assertions and just keep reposting stuff from “Truther” websites. I don’t see that there’s much that I can do. If anyone knows of another label that would be widely recognised, tell me and I’ll use it if I can.
This is interesting. What happened to all this material? Clark might be able to look into the NIST bible and find some kind of ‘official’ explanation. But I suspect others, like me, have no explanation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4FkO5ry1uo
No answer to this then Clark?
I answered it above at 22:05; my second and third paragraphs:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-99/#comment-634793
John Goss, or anyone for that matter; a point of logic.
Over and over, Truthers link the video of two New York firefighters, one of whom is saying:
– “You get down below and you’d see molten steel, molten steel, running down the channel rails.”
What were the “channel rails”, and what were they made of?
“This is really poor.”
The image, and the analysis, is actually very good Clark. I suspect the reason you claim this is costing you too much time (above a day) is because you cannot find anything to support the official version and Bollyn, and those who find the official version suspect, might be right.
No, it’s really poor. The section on WTC6 is based on just one still photo, and there’s not even anything to show us what it was like before the destruction. You can’t just say “where did everything go” without showing what was there before.
I’m not trying to “support the official story”. I’m weeding.
The image is very good, high resolution. You can zoom in on it and even then still see fairly good resolution and the narrator does just this.
There are clear pictures of what it looked like before from the outside. Here is another description which talks about a massive explosion at 9.04 am. There was apparently a garage below.
https://mpoverello.com/2011/09/09/911-%e2%80%93-the-significance-for-customs/
Chris Bollyn corrected his earlier account (based on what a CNN official had told him) when he realised the plume was from the first tower collapsing.
http://www.whale.to/b/bollynwtc609.html
You can see from photographs taken by Bill Braggart (who died in the South Tower collapse) that damage has already been done to WTC6.
Sorry his name was Bill Biggart (not Braggart) and he died when the North (not South) Tower collapsed. He continued photographing right up to his death. He was clearly dedicated to his work. The photograph which shows WTC6 to the left was taken at 9:59:35 am.
http://www.billbiggart.com/911_5.html
I get a lot of hostility on this thread. I’m accused of stubbornness, wilful blindness, accepting bribes and supporting war.
I think many have misunderstood. I think that if you raise criticisms of something, then those criticisms should be well founded. So for instance, when people say that the Twin Towers “fell into their own footprints”, I object, because anyone can look up the aftermath pictures and see that the wreckage covered many times the area of the buildings’ footprints. Conversely, regarding Building 7, I take its nearly symmetrical collapse and its 2.25 seconds of acceleration at around g very seriously. But I also take the fall of its east mechanical penthouse and the Fire Department’s fears that it might collapse very seriously, too.
There are various reasons that I press for accuracy.
Most people are moderates, and most people are not stupid. Say you criticise “the official story” but make exaggerations. Some people encounter your claims, and start to wonder. They look deeper, but from various directions. They discover that your claims are exaggerated and lose faith, not just in your exaggerated claims but in all your claims. Maybe they lose faith in you personally. This may well have happened to Node in his story about Relatives A and B:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-98/#comment-630017
This matters even more if your objective is to get authorities to take action. Governments and regulatory bodies are very busy, with thousands of concerns being dealt with, and thousands more that they are under public and private pressure to consider. Public authorities work on limited budgets. If you want public pressure to provoke institutional action, you’re better off giving the public strong facts to lobby with. If the public press for action but two thirds of the “facts” they present are exaggerated or concocted, it is easy for the authorities to dismiss them. Remember that the dismissal will be amplified by the corporate media and your movement will be ridiculed, losing you support with the majority, who are moderate. You may gain loud support from less moderate minorities, but this just weakens your credibility in the eyes of the moderate majority.
When I call people conspiracy theorists, it is not to ridicule them but in the hope that they may recognise the problem in dismissing those who challenge as being part of a conspiracy – if you’re right, your target is a conspirator and will continue anyway and if you’re wrong, you’ll just lose credibility with the challenger.
Everyone here should be challenging all of the assertions to refine them and make the case stronger. Instead, everything gets a free pass unless it’s perceived as opposing the “official story”. Ironically, this achieves the exact opposite of what’s intended.
In the 48min video linked below Chair of the Dept of Civil Engineering at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Professor Leroy Hulsey, explains to an assembly of the student chapter of the American Society of Civil Engineers why the National Institute of Science and Technlogy (NIST) modelling of the WTC 7 collapse used in producing their report on the WTC 7 collapse on 9/11 was lacking in significant details.
Professor Hulsey also explains in his address how and why he and his two assisstants (a PhD engineering student and a post-doctoral engineer) in this project to conduct an independant investigation of the WTC 7 collapse came to conclude that the NIST explanation of the cause of WTC 7 collapse could not possibly be correct.
NIST engineers in their final report concluded that the 47 story WTC collapsed at close to freefall accelleration (it experienced actual freefall for the first 100ft of collapse) because an office fire on floor 13 caused so much thermal expanison in a steel girder that the girder shifted off its seat on column #79 which in turn caused that column to lose lateral support thereby setting off a chain event of structural failures leading to the complete and total building collapse. Professor Hulsey’s team concluded that the girder in question could not have moved by more than an inch or so (significantly less than the 6.25inches NIST had reported) and not nearly enough to have it shift off its seat.
Professor Hulsey and his team expect to finish his investigation by May 2017 and pass his findings through and independent peer review committee before publishing a final report .
Note although the speaker is understandable, audio quality at the start of the video is not the best until the audio clears up around the 9:30 mark when the background noise on the audio goes away.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8DNabmb9-k
This is the Professor Hulsey who claims that steel is a very fire resistant material is it?
https://www.metabunk.org/files/Cowell-Building.jpg
A bit dishonest but not untypical. Here is something more academic on the effects of earthquakes on steel.
http://www.eqclearinghouse.org/2011-03-11-sendai/2011/08/03/eeri-steel-structures-reconnaissance-group/
How is it in any way dishonest? Here is a recording of the man himself:-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-VNjYXU-CE
Plus:-
https://www.metabunk.org/data/MetaMirrorCache/contrailscience.com_skitch_12_story_steel_frames_collapse_20120423_103318.jpg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGsOkT__M7Y#t=377
That a short piece of steel softens when heated high enough over its entire length is hardly news. What about repeating the test with a 300m beam and measuring the temperature 10, 50 or 100m from the fire? Not a good idea as it will show that the steel will be nowhere near hot enough even after prolonged time.
“A bit dishonest but not untypical.”
The photograph you linked to was from the 1906 earthquake.
” What about repeating the test with a 300m beam and measuring the temperature 10, 50 or 100m from the fire? ”
As the maximum span of the floor trusses in the WTC was18m what would that prove?
” The photograph you linked to was from the 1906 earthquake. ”
Which was followed by a devastating fire which destroyed many building which had been left undamaged by the earthquake.
” What about repeating the test with a 300m beam and measuring the temperature 10, 50 or 100m from the fire? ”
As the maximum span of the floor trusses in the WTC was18m what would that prove?
The floor trusses were made of a sandwich of concrete and steel so a trst using an I beam is irrelevant as far as the floor slabs go.
But the supporting core columns were made from I beams so a test with a longer beam would have shown that just a short distance away from the fire the temperarure was already too cold to compromise the beam’s strength.
Even if Building 7 was deliberately demolished, it hurt no one, and does not necessarily bear upon the collapses of the Twin Towers because (1) they happened earlier and (2) their collapses were completely different, proceeding from the damaged zones downwards rather than beginning at the base of the building.
The design of Building 7 lent itself to a “quick and dirty” sort of demolition – as shown, ironically, by NIST’s proposed collapse mechanism. If Building 7 was brought down deliberately it needn’t have been rigged in advance; a quick decision on the afternoon of 9/11 seems more likely.
In general I find Kempe to be far more honest that John Goss, and this instance is no exception. The caption on the linked photograph is quite specific about what happened to the building, so no deception there. By contrast, John makes out that the earthquake destroyed the building.
I’m not sure that John Goss is consciously dishonest. I think his bias just comes naturally, and that same bias keeps him from seeing it.
Correction. The photograph linked by Kempe that John Goss referred to did not have a caption. I had confused it with the other photograph from 1906. I apologise to John Goss for this.
However, Kempe’s choice of photograph was not dishonest. The damage to the Cowell Building was caused by fire, not earthquake:
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=BEyi0K-kUdgC&pg=PA89&lpg=PA89&dq=cowell+building&source=bl&ots=4u4KPQlaDq&sig=AVGgz3CYHxnGwALPv-9jtgJ0nQA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwim_f2M15_QAhWoLsAKHQTnB9IQ6AEIPDAM
– “No special interest attaches to the Cowell building, except that it seems to have been more flimsy than the average. It had unprotected steel work and girders and wooden-joisted floors. The effect of fire on the unprotected steelwork is well illustrated in P1. LI. B.
When NIST refuse to release details of Building 7 “on the grounds of public safety”, I sometimes wonder if they mean to prevent the New York Mob ditching various people into the harbour wearing concrete boots.
“Trying to outdo the mainstream media by throwing a few million bucks around is like trying to outshine the sun with a flashgun.”
But:
“Silence is complicity.”
The testimony, presented to the 9/11 commission of the last man out of WTC1, but ‘restricted’. WIlly Rodriguez was a hero to MSM until he mentioned all the explosives before the planes hit. He is of course still a hero. Wake up world. This article mentions people employed to discredit alternatives to the official story. Hope there are none here on this blog.
https://coto2.wordpress.com/2011/08/10/last-man-out-on-911-makes-shocking-disclosures/
John, if you’re genuinely interested in the truth, and not just looking to help concoct and project demolition mythology, you really should look into how Rodriguez has changed and embellished his story over the years. Stardom has unfortunate effects upon some people.
John, I’m sorry to keep challenging things. I doubt you’ll believe me but it really isn’t my fault. The 9/11 “Truth” movement has exuded a small ocean of bullshit over the years. The genuinely interesting nuggets have long since been submerged. Daft assertions should have been dismissed years ago; instead, the “he’s an agent! He’s an agent!” bleat has drowned out the sensible voices. The “nukes in the basement” theory should have died when no iodine 131 was detected, and hologram aircraft shouldn’t have survived past the holes in the Twin Towers, let alone “light travels in straight lines”. That’s how rational argument proceeds – using disproof and elimination, but these are entirely absent from the 9/11 “debate”.
No, Clark, you are not sorry to keep challenging everything non-establishment. You feel like you have an answer for everything, yet, in my opinion you are among the most dogmatic and objectionable of people who contribute to the blog. You should not talk about how a hero of 9/11 changed his story without giving details of how and when. But you do that all the time and when we examine your evidence it never stacks up, not from your total lack of knowledge about Newtonian physics to your avid support for the official view all the time and everyone else is, to your mind, a liar. My advice would be to finish your science degree because until you do you are going to continue to believe that the twin towers and all the other buildings that fell, or were demolished, were brought down according to NIST.
Recently you were asking why nobody heard the explosions, Rodriguez and many others, who were there heard them. Why was his testimony ignored or restricted from public access? A brave man whose friends and other testifiers have been murdered by those you are trying to protect. Yet you have nothing for him except ad hominems without giving any reason, just plain bigotry. No wonder so many call you names. Seriously you need to examine whether the hat fits. I’m sorry but you can have the thread to yourself. You and Kempe have driven everybody away. I’m with Node on this. You’ve stifled debate with your partisan dogma!
Here’s what Rodriguez told CNN at 13:33 on 9/11:
– “…we hear like a big rumble. Not like an impact, like a rumble, like moving furniture in a massive way. And all of sudden we hear another rumble, and a guy comes running, running into our office, and all of skin was off his body. All of the skin”
Rumble, not explosions. Here’s the transcript:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/11/bn.24.html
Here’s the video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQk3XXBot9c
Here’s what he said to Aaron Brown, CNN Anchor, one year later:
– “And at that terrible day when I took people out of the office, one of them totally burned because he was standing in front of the freight elevator and the ball of fire came down the duct of the elevator itself, I put him on the ambulance.”
Here’s the transcript:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0209/11/se.48.html
John, I’m sorry that you find it offensive that I insist upon truth and accuracy. Is it truth and accuracy themselves that you object to, or is it personal? Because really, it is NOT MY FAULT when people make up shit, and it is NOT MY FAULT that you’ve eaten so much of that shit that you’ve developed a taste for it.
And I understand Newton’s laws perfectly well. If you think otherwise, please show me why.
John, look. If you don’t like being corrected, you could check things for yourself before posing links to them. It really isn’t asking too much.
I actually think you would not understand truth and accuracy if it jumped up and bit you on the nose. You have demonstrated your lack of knowledge of Newton’s third law over and over again. I urge you again to listen to these scientists and engineers explain what you were unable to grasp the last time I posted it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7e0PiQhSL7g
Then ask yourself why 2,000 plus scientists and engineers (I think it is 2,500 plus now) put their research degrees and reputations on the line in questioning the NIST account account when there are no scientists and engineers prepared to oppose Newtonian physics.
What I really found distasteful in your trying to debunk, not at all successfully, what Rodriguez’ accounts were, without, I suspect even having read the link I posted, was how you could side with the US government against a brave man, who went back into the North Tower time and again to help the injured, and you, who have offered not a credible piece of information in thousands and thousands of comments, have the sheer impertinence to challenge the evidence of this good man on the basis of a single interview with CNN, which even says at the beginning that the account may not be final. So he could have mentioned the explosions then and it have been edited out. Anyway his testimony has been ‘restricted’ as I guess have all the others that mention the explosions. You might have a brain but you have no heart, a total lack of feeling for those who seek the truth, and those who speak the truth.
When I read comments from someone so consumed by the ‘accuracy’ of the official view talk down to me, with a research degree and an engineering background, with comments like: “John, I’m sorry that you find it offensive that I insist upon truth and accuracy” I burst out laughing. When you have got back to some kind of reasonableness, I might return to this thread. But you, and Kempe who posts a photograph of steel twisted in the earthquakes and fires of 1906 San Francisco, as evidence of what caused the few severely twisted structural steel beams in 9/11, it turns my laughter into despair. Hope one day before it is revealed to all you come to see reason.
I have said many times I do not know what the truth is. But I do know what it is not. I discount nothing (except that the twin towers could have been brought down by fire, as claimed by NIST. Anyway watch the video above. Then find me 2000 engineers and scientists who support the official view, or even twenty. Your previous argument about all the engineers and scientists who do support the official view being all the others who are not among scientists and engineers for 9/11 truth is ludicrous. Only loons, bloggers and laymen could question Newtonion physics. So there you have it. It is not personal. I have met you remember. But I would not want to walk into a Jeremy Corbyn meeting with someone so ill-informed about basic science if he was talking about a scientific subject in case you expounded a view though I would be happy to do so in giving Jeremy Corbyn our support for socialist policies.
Now mug up on Newton’s third law about their being an equal and opposite reaction to every action. I will keep an eye on the thread. Try to look objectively at other points of view as well as the ‘official’ view. And please remember, however enthused you might be about putting everybody down on this subject that you may have a higher purpose in life that being a NIST truther. 🙂
“about their being an” = “about there being an”
Newtonion = Newtonian
etc.
John Goss, ad hominen is against the moderation rules of this site.
– “I actually think you would not understand truth and accuracy if it jumped up and bit you on the nose”
– “You have demonstrated your lack of knowledge of Newton’s third law over and over again”
– “…listen to these scientists and engineers explain what you were unable to grasp the last time I posted it”
These are all ad hominen. While carefully avoiding any insulting phrases, you are effectively calling me a fool. I suspect that you are playing to the gallery, trying to give the impression that my physics is no good. You have done this again and again over the course of weeks.
Assuming that we have the gallery’s attention, I point out that the John Goss denigrating my ability accepted the “hologram planes” theory without noticing that holograms cannot punch great holes in buildings, or that holograms can only appear in the same line of sight as the screen on which they’re encoded because light travels in straight lines. He failed to notice that images of dark aircraft could not be projected onto a bright sky since light from the sky would need to be blocked. He advocated a theory that nuclear weapons were used to destroy the WTC buildings without considering that nuclear explosions would be detected by the International Monitoring System. I think these points demonstrate that John’s ability to reason about subjects in physics is quite limited. I expect that his criticism of my own abilities is best explained by the Dunning-Kruger effect.
John, you probably feel insulted by what I’ve written above, and I’m sorry. I’ve tried to express those matters neutrally, but there is no way to say it without it hurting. As I’ve written before, I’m actually trying to do you, and everyone, a favour by saving you from arguments that are essentially a form of propaganda. The video you linked to is an example; it is designed not to inform, but to unfairly influence people to believe in demolition. I could go through it point by point, but my experience indicates that doing so would actually entrench your false opinion still further.
Instead, please tell me if that video convinces you that the Twin Towers fell at free-fall acceleration, and please tell me your opinion of David Chandler.
John, I hadn’t read your link to Last Man Out on 9/11 Makes Shocking Disclosures at coto2.wordpress.com but I have now. It refers to the hijackers as “nineteen clueless Arabs” which appears to be simply racist. It refers to the general public as “the gullible, clueless masses”; I hope you don’t share such a sense of illusory superiority.
It claims that Barry Jennings “reported stepping over dead bodies in WTC7 before the Towers came down” though Jennings didn’t get out of Building 7 for hours after the fall of both Towers. It distorts Kenny Johanneman’s testimony, and it infers that former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez both helped suppress the “truth” about 9/11.
Unpleasant, sensationalist, racist and full of greatly exaggerated to utterly unwarranted inferences; I’m disappointed that you can’t see that article for the long-winded, misleading travesty that it is.
My questions remain – please tell me if the video you linked convinces you that the Twin Towers fell at free-fall acceleration, and please tell me your opinion of David Chandler.
Clark. Witness a demolition wave ripping its way down the building in slow motion at around the 53 minute mark in this documentary.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BwZEgZgtT8
00:50:57 – “The seal of the building was already broken when the collapse began. Logically, if it was compressed air, it should have found the path of least resistance through the broken part of the building”
This is ridiculous. Tens of thousands of tonnes of falling material inevitably moves air along with it. It’s crazy to imagine that large volumes of air could have escaped upwards through all that chaotically churning, rapidly falling material.
I don’t know what caused the several ejections ahead of the collapse wave, but neither do I see that they could have served any purpose if, as asserted, the collapse wave actually consisted if tightly sequenced explosions. Whatever they were, they did not initiate new collapse fronts.
00:51:52 – “Notice the dark brown smoke coming out of the top floor of the tower. This smoke is already dissipating before the plane strikes the building”
This is just plain wrong. No smoke is visible before the impact. The clip shown within the linked video begins after the aircraft strike, so this could be deliberate deception. Here’s the original:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miA8Td4oNcY
Then we have the shot of WTC1 as WTC2 was struck. An increase in the rate of emission of smoke from various holes in WTC1 is described as “several tiny explosions”, ignoring the shock wave from the impact and fireball at WTC2.
00:52:43 – “The seventh characteristic of a planned implosion’s what’s called a demolition wave. It’s the path of destruction in a controlled demolition. It is a visible wave of explosions moving down the columns of a building just ahead of or at the speed of gravity. This array of synchronised explosives is timed to blow out floors beneath the collapse wave as the floors above reach the floors below, thus allowing a drop approaching free-fall speed”
This, again, is ridiculous. Planned demolitions do not display sequenced floor-by-floor explosions. Unsurprisingly, controlled demolitions use the minimum amount of explosives. This seems to be a deliberate misrepresentation of the techniques of controlled demolition.
The slow motion sequence shows the advancing collapse front. The leading edge of destruction proceeded within the perimeter façade, blasting out air, dust and particulates as it went. At the far right vertical corner of the tower, the collapse front can be seen to have got well ahead of other parts – incidentally, contradicting the repeated claims that the collapses were “too symmetrical to be natural”.
Maxter, videos such as this are designed to convince. They do not present balanced arguments; they slant everything in an attempt to support demolition. At a basic level, they are dishonest. I object to such dishonesty just as much as I object to propaganda from the corporate media.
Something that depresses me about all this is how willing, indeed eager, many people are to be deceived, if the deception aligns with what they already want to think.
If you want to believe in demolition of the Twin Towers, no amount of evidence will make any difference. Irrational motivations cannot be changed by reason because they were never based upon reason in the first place.
I’ll probably give up soon. It’s impossible to discuss 9/11 here. The only conversation possible is about “demolition of the Twin Towers”. I’m apparently the only person here applying original thought. Occasionally I make suggestions for consideration or research, but they are universally ignored. The conspiracy theorists seem to disapprove of anything beyond repetition from a few well-worn websites.
Absolute bollocks! And thats as about articulate as I can be with the scientific mumbo jumbo you are writing here! Some folk would be persuaded by it, others use common sense and callout it out for what it overwhelmingly looks like. You are ignoring all the witnesses testimony, how the hell can you do that? Don’t answer I’m not interested!
I look carefully. The Twin Towers appeared to undergo top-down collapses. First they suffer huge damage from the aircraft, then they burn, then they start to give – crucially, at the damaged zones. That is exactly where I’d expect a failure, so that is common sense. Then the top parts smash down through the bottom parts, air and dust blast out, just like in vérinage demolition. Again, common sense. Most dust is released as the wreckage falls into a big heap, so the dust seems to have been produced by crushing, because the crushing occurred at the end of the collapses, as opposed to explosives, which would produce dust throughout the collapses.
Doing rough maths it continues to make sense. The floor assemblies were wholly inadequate to support the mass of debris which impinged upon them, so they had to fail – common sense. Without the floor assemblies to keep the columns upright, they got pushed outwards by the mass of debris within. They moved outwards at their top ends first because their bottom ends still had lateral support. The videos show this clearly.
And I listen carefully. Yes, there were lots of reports of explosions. Explosions are commonplace in fires. Maybe some explosions were bombs, I’ve no way of proving otherwise, but bombs at various times do NOT amount to “controlled demolition”. These explosions did not initiate any collapses.
I also listen to testimony NOT mentioned on Truther sites – why these gross omissions? Surely Truthers can’t be trying to deceive? Sadly, I have had to conclude that many Truther sites actually are deliberately deceptive. Read the following, if you dare, and then do please tell me what you think. Or just put the telescope to your blind eye, like Truthers do over and over again:
https://sites.google.com/site/911stories/accountsoftowerstructuralinstabilityande
Maxter, do you generally think of science as “mumbo jumbo”? To you, is science all just men in white coats saying incomprehensible things?
http://www.medialens.org/index.php/alerts/alert-archive/2016/830-yemen-vote-the-responsibility-to-protect-profits.html
– ‘To sum up… the British parliament sent the green light to Saudi Arabia and its allies to carry on bombing, maiming and killing. I have reported politics from Westminster for almost 25 years and can recall few more shocking parliamentary events.
– ‘Shocking – but not surprising. The Yemen vote demonstrates something that has been apparent ever since the vote on 18 March 2003 to support the invasion of Iraq: the party of war holds a majority in the Commons.
– ‘It comprises virtually all of the Conservative Party and the Blairite wing of Labour.’
The 9/11 Commission reported that fifteen of the nineteen hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. The redacted 28 pages detail close links to the Saudi government. Most in the 9/11 “Truth” movement tell us that the US government and/or Mossad performed the 9/11 attacks as a pretext to attack the Muslim world and seize the oil fields, and that the extensive evidence implicating Saudi Arabia are deliberately planted false leads…
…yet Saudi Arabia (with the greatest oil deposits) and the other Gulf monarchies are hardly ever criticised, let alone attacked. Saudi Arabia is even supported in its atrocious assault upon Yemen.
Somehow, both “the official story” and the 9/11 “Truth” movement avoid accusing Saudi Arabia and its Gulf allies.
Odd that, eh? Could the 9/11 “Truth” movement have been diverted into “controlled opposition”?
That is not how I read it Clark.
David Ray Griffin’s books have probably been the most extensive and reliable repository of criticisms of the official 911 story. There are plenty of references to the role of KSA in his writing and his speeches.
Kevin Ryan -the whistleblower who went on to co-edit the journal of 911 studies and has written about controlled demolition at length, has also written a lot about connections to the Saudi’s and Kuwait.
Researchers like Paul Thompson and Jon Gold have attracted a large audience, have written almost exclusively about the Saudi connection.
So your comment, Somehow, both “the official story” and the 9/11 “Truth” movement avoid accusing Saudi Arabia and its Gulf allies. is just flatly false to someone who has studied 911 truth material.
You have a mission here, that is clearly stated. You say that you think that “911 clearly involved the Neocons” but that you reject the assertion that any of the three buildings were destroyed in controlled demolitions.
Whilst I disagree with you, I think it is a legitimate position to hold. However, misrepresenting the ‘Truth Movement’ does your argument no favours.
Mog, correction – I don’t know what happened to Building 7.
My impression is that many in the early 9/11 Truth movement advocated exposure of neocon ties with Saudi Arabia, notably the close association between the Bush and bin Laden families. However, this seems to have become marginalised and all but displaced, mostly by demolition theories and allegations against Israel. My experience on this thread is that mention of Saudi Arabia is unpopular; either ignored or dismissed as deliberately planted false leads.
I have far more in common with the early Truth movement and I object to what it seems to have become. The examples found on this thread have essentially no relevance to foreign policy or even politics; instead they are dominated by pseudoscience and generation of mythology regarding demolition of the Twin Towers – I expect that many here will object to that description, but the process is clear to see – anyone can propose anything deemed to contradict “the official story”, but the essential scientific process of disproof is outlawed as “supporting the official story”.
Regarding Building 7, I expect that too little physical evidence remains to provide much insight into its manner of collapse. Maybe NIST’s archives hold something, or maybe they never had enough physical evidence in the first place. But if it was demolished by explosives, unless that decision was taken before 9/11, its collapse has no relevance to the attacks.
Node, thanks for finding Mog’s original comment about the anthrax attacks.
Mog, by reading from Node’s link to the end of the page you can now see that (1) what I actually pooh-poohed was not the anthrax attacks nor even the allegation of conspiracy and false-flag, but the conspiracy theorist mindset that lumps all government authorities and employees into One Big Nebulous All-Powerful Enemy, (2) that I requested confirmatory evidence for an assertion, and also searched for it myself, (3) that I accepted that evidence, and (4) that I connected it with other information and used it to draw inferences. For all of this I thank the commenters Lysias and Ba’al for informing us.
You can also see that three months later I made use of what I had learned:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-97/#comment-628996
Mog, the example from demolition theory bodes ill for the whole movement. For months now, I’ve been checking out claims made on these threads, and nearly all of them have proven wrong under the slightest scrutiny. Doing so has led to me being ridiculed, accused of conspiracy and supporting war, so I can see why critical scrutiny is rare.
The collapses of the buildings were only a small part of the entire 9/11 event. If all the other matters are shrouded under similar quantities of bullshit, it will be more than a lifetime’s work to clarify them. The movement only has itself to blame. We don’t weed our garden. We make accusations against anyone who does weed it, and then blame the growth of weeds upon enemy action.
I don’t totally disagree with everything that you have written in your attempt to ‘weed’ out speculative and unfounded assertions in the comments here. I am though unconvinced in your efforts to discredit the CD hypothesis.
However, you seem to be saying that this thread represents a cross section of opinion regarding live issues concerning 911 research. Why not go to a site like 911Blogger.com and check if that hunch is accurate? Looking at recent pages there, a reader will see articles about the Saudi angle, about Zelikow, about the stand down of air defences, about theft of diamonds from WTC on 911, about the Pentagon and one about Israeli spies.
I mentioned the anthrax angle some time back, and you pretty much pooh-poohed it out of hand.
It is you who, more than anyone else here, keeps drawing the conversation back to discussion of controlled demolition.
You cannot on the one hand, write a large majority of posts on this board- almost all about one aspect of the events of 911, then scream that “the Truth Movement is obsessed with controlled demolition”. It is you who seem obsessed.
It might be more productive to try and introduce topics other than the WTC destruction, if you want a discussion about possible connections between the KSA, the Neocons in power in 2001 and the actual events of 9/11.
Mog, if there is more intelligent discussion of 9/11 elsewhere, all well and good, but I’ve been involved with this site for years. The wild theories have proliferated, and beliefs about 9/11 seem to be at the heart of that phenomenon, the source from which the others radiate. You don’t seem to see the problem, but those I’ve been calling conspiracy theorists were taking over the threads. A critical mass was assembling, where any not conforming to the most extreme views were attracting concerted criticism and accusations of being Agents. Craig himself was coming under such attack, accused of stifling discussion of 9/11.
This site has always attracted commenters from across the political spectrum, drawn by Craig’s whistleblowing and his activism for human rights. It has saddened me to see that swamped and fractured by a collaboration of commenters, united only by their searing self-righteous but misplaced sense of certainty.
More later. Please link your original comment about the anthrax attacks.
I do not have time to find the link to my comment about anthrax attacks.
As said, I do not object totally to the effort to challenge baseless theories, (about conspiracies or anything for that matter).
I do though wonder if you do yourself a dis-service through your zeal. I see the ‘circle jerk’ that you mention in disdain, but so do many of the more responsible academics who have actually done the research and stepped forward with opinions. It is not something that the Truth movement is blind to.
Again, I linked to the 911 consensus panel as a response to the knee-jerk reaction of labelling as ‘nutcases’ any who think that the CD hypothesis deserves testing. You ignored this link more than once. These are credible people on the panel, even if you disagree with their assessment.
have to go now.
Mog, I doubt that I pooh-poohed the anthrax attacks themselves. They were exposed as false flag. However, if you attempted to use them to support demolition theory I will have pooh-poohed that, and quite rightly so. It is a common demolition theorists’ trick to list half a dozen other matters, usually aspects of 9/11 but quite often the assassination of Kennedy or Israel’s attack on the USS Liberty, and to use these in an attempt to ridicule anyone challenging demolition theory as hopelessly gullible.
Look back through the thread. I have raised various other matters, notably the Quincey agreement and the documented collaboration between the CIA and the sort of extremists who definitely would commit attacks like 9/11. No one wants to know; they just blast back in with more demolition theory, as if I require correction. A lot of the rest of the time I have just been defending myself.
I have also repeatedly raised the matters of flimsy design, inadequate emergency exits, inadequate fireproofing and inadequate emergency systems in the Twin Towers, and corruption in the New York construction sector, and Kempe highlighted severe deficiencies in maintenance of the Twin Tower’s fire resistance. These are important matters in their own right. They may not be as cold blooded as deliberate demolition, but they are irresponsible and deadly nonetheless. These points have met with condemnation and universal disagreement despite these being serious crimes that have gone unpunished. Demolition theorists are eager to excuse, dismiss and even help to cover up these serious crimes in their zeal to propagate their favoured theory, which they promote for political rather than humanitarian reasons. In this, demolition theorists resemble the hypocritical warmongering politicians with their claims of “humanitarian intervention” who, ironically, the demolition theorists repeatedly accuse me and Kempe of serving.
I have various reasons for the stance I take. One is that I object to deception, whether it comes from the corporate media or from the sort of “evidence” we see repeatedly linked to or posted on this thread. Another is that I’m fighting for a safe space for those of more conventional opinion who nonetheless oppose US/UK wars of aggression, and would oppose destabilisation by Western exploitation of religious extremists if the corporate media would inform them of the policy. This thread proves unambiguously that such a safe space does not at present exist. That it has become popular to collaborate in trashing Chomsky, of all people, purely because he dismisses demolition theory, should be a warning light and a source of deep shame to the entire movement.
Mog : I do not have time to find the link to my comment about anthrax attacks.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-91/#comment-611242
Node, thanks for finding Mog’s original comment about the anthrax attacks.
Mog, by reading from Node’s link to the end of the page you can now see that (1) what I actually pooh-poohed was not the anthrax attacks nor even the allegation of conspiracy and false-flag, but the conspiracy theorist mindset that lumps all government authorities and employees into One Big Nebulous All-Powerful Enemy, (2) that I requested confirmatory evidence for an assertion, and also searched for it myself, (3) that I accepted that evidence, and (4) that I connected it with other information and used it to draw inferences. For all of this I thank the commenters Lysias and Ba’al for informing us.
You can also see that three months later I made use of what I had learned:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-97/#comment-628996
Thanks node,
Clark,
I read that as a fairly dismissive post. I didn’t make any attempt to link the anthrax attacks with the CD hypothesis in that comment – as you supposed that I did.
It is a straw man argument to say that I, or Graeme MacQueen to whom I linked were or are proposing ‘One Big Nebulous All-Powerful Enemy’ . Again, my reading of the academic writings to which I try to draw focus, is that they none of them propose that “”The US Government”” did 9/11, (or “”The Israeli Government”” et al). Likewise the involvement of ‘The Neocons’ does not cover elements of the plot that have their roots before the Neocons were anywhere near power. The best description I have read is that there is a deep state that reveals its presence when ‘deep events’ occur (911 being one of them).
On that note, another person who you may not have read (it would seem not as you appear unfamiliar with many of the subjects outside of CD) is Peter Dale Scott. I recommend his ‘Road to 911’ as a deep penetration of the connections between KSA, the US deep state and 911. Again, contrary to your assertion that the Truth Movement has become singularly focused on WTC events, I note that his most recent contribution ‘The American Deep State’ was published in 2014.
Mog, I agree that “the neocons” is an inadequate label. For one thing, the exploitation of indoctrinated extremists pre-dates neoconservatism.
I looked back at the thread around your comment that Node linked to. I think I was pretty annoyed with you because earlier that day you’d badly misrepresenting my description of the damage / fire / gravity collapse model of the Twin Towers. I’d need to be crazy to believe what you seemed to think I believe. I’ve made considerable effort to describe clearly my understanding of the collapses. I think one should understand an argument before (apparently) ridiculing it, and if one can’t understand it, they should just ask.
My comment about the anthrax wasn’t aimed at you personally.
I would like to get around to reading Peter Dale Scott – though I think I’ll continue to avoid his poetry! I’d like to get away from demolition of the Twin Towers but it keeps rearing its head. It’s nonsense, but supported by masses of deception and unwarranted inferences. I wish a few more people would see the light and start countering it; it fucks everything up.
If you have the chance Clark, I recommend that you look at the 911 Consensus Panel webpage. I do not suggest this in some effort to pursuade you to reconsider your position on WTC, but rather to challenge the notion that you put forward that the CD hypothesis “is a psyop”.
http://www.consensus911.org/
I really think that it is not, and have seen zero evidence suggesting that it is- and I say that regardless of the validity of the theory. Can you not simply disagree with the Consensus Points regarding WTC, ditto the conclusions of the Toronto Hearings, and those of the papers at The Journal of 911 Studies. You are not alone amongst those who question 911 more generally, but who reject the CD hypothesis for the towers, however, if you condem those who disagree with your stance as being part of/ duped by a psyop, then you are going to be accused of the very same circularity of ‘conspiracy thinking’ that rears its head by some who are attacking your opinions.
How can this disagreement about WTC be resolved? I don’t think it can through the contributions on blog comment pages – not saying that these should stop, but rather that the efforts of academics and scientists to challenge the official reports on the WTC events and to put forward arguments in the form of academic literature is the best way we have. I am waiting for a response from building/ engineering professionals to the Europhysics Journal article that seeks to explain with evidence and experimental data the anomalies raised.
Mog, if people would just be honest and even-handed, the “question” of demolition of the Twin Towers would evaporate very quickly. There is simply no direct evidence for it. There are merely a small number of circumstantial inferences, such as that Building 7’s collapse looks like a demolition therefore the Twin Towers might have been, and a State Department official who wishes to remain anonymous decided to whisper in Susan Lindauer’s ear alleging unidentified vans (for which there’s an obvious an ulterior motive), rather than posting CCTV footage to Wikileaks or whatever.
– “How can this disagreement about WTC be resolved?”
The May 2002 act under which the NIST investigations were conducted would need to be changed. NIST, or another body, would have to be tasked with apportioning responsibility for the collapses. The non-disclosure agreements under which NIST worked would have to be voided. The claims of victims and relatives should be resubmitted to court in some fashion. The decision to clear the WTC site should be investigated. NIST should be tasked with describing the deficiencies in the data and materials that were available to them, and documenting the uncertainty in their findings.
Mog, I’ve been browsing through the points at http://www.consensus911.org/the-911-consensus-points/ but I have a terrible feeling about it. Many of the points look very serious, but the earliest points are all about demolition, and some I already know to be very weak. TT-1 to TT-4 are in the most part easily answered, for instance, and shouldn’t really be on the list.
My experience on this thread is that Truthers, for want of another label, tend to overstate and exaggerate claims and that I’m the only one who examines claims critically. There’s a lot to go through, and I’m seriously depressed – not “depressed”, like a bit down; I frequently think and feel that I should shut myself off from people for as long as I can stand the loneliness preparatory to finishing myself off. I’ll no doubt be accused of whining with self pity for admitting this, but the point is that I’m not up to the task. My experience on this thread is that everyone else save Kempe will seize upon each and every point and proclaim them as absolute proof. If I attempt to discuss matters here I’m going to be inundated under a tsunami of bullshit, and maybe attract more hostility and accusations of collusion and accepting bribes than I can handle.
It’s a mess. If only everyone would hold each other to account, such a mess wouldn’t have been permitted to develop. I feel considerable resentment to the exaggerators.
Do you know where good counter-arguments can be found? Probably not, eh?
Secret Affairs: Britain’s Collusion with Radical Islam by Mark Curtis (Paperback) (ISBN: 9781846687648)
http://www.word-power.co.uk/books/secret-affairs-I9781846687648/
– “As much of history is appropriated by the media and we are beckoned into an era of endless war, this superb book could not be more timely. Sensational in the best sense, it examines the darkest corners of the imperial past to reveal the truth behind today’s news” John Pilger
– “Unearthing this largely hidden history is a contribution of the highest significance, and could hardly be more timely.” Noam Chomsky
– “This valuable and important book by Mark Curtis, the result of painstaking and extensive research into declassified files on British policy towards the Islamic world over the last half century, presents a far more accurate and balanced picture than the shallow simplicities fed by Bush’s so-called war on terror.It shows in extensive detail how Britain and the US have repeatedly sided with radical Islamic forces in the Middle East and elsewhere as counterweights to check the rise of nationalism, as shock troops to bring about pro-Western regime change, and as proxies to fight wars against the West’s enemies. There is no war between civilizations (Bush), no Manichaean struggle between the good and evil forces of Islam (Blair), rather the ever-present serpentine thread of shifting alliances to maintain British control of key energy resources and Britain’s place in a pro-Western global financial order centred on Saudi Arabia. This is a fascinating account which can change outlooks and deepen comprehension of a hugely misunderstood drama, and it should be compelling reading before any further Middle East wars are set in train.” Michael Meacher, MP
i hesitate to have anything to do with this topic but in truth it it is a compelling one. I have also been of the opinion that demolition deliberated on in advance by some cabal, was vanishingly unlikely. Obviously the technical details of the collapses are essentially, to the majority of people with limited time and very limited insight, unknowable.
However there has always been the intuitive feeling that despite everything, there is another story hidden within this disaster.
One of the more interesting insights by Clark is that much to do with the buildings was simply not up to scratch in a rather humdrum way. Maintenance systems were deficient or faulty (we hear). Corners were cut on repairs. Sprinkler systems and fire escapes were grossly inadequate. All these kinds of things are very common and believable deficiencies and speak to our very common experience that human affairs are often guided by minor misunderstandings and failings, and possibly fiddles, and even on a grander scale-systematic fraud by say a contractor charged with upkeep /or the repair or checking. such complacency and inefficiency is part and parcel of life.
The snag is that, when it al goes wrong, and deaths occur due to these failings one starts to look in detail at these systems. There is usually a process of incrimination and enquiry and lines of responsibility are traced.
Of course the magnitude of the assault on the towers may be so great that these minor factors are more or less irrelevant. Perhaps it is the case that even if the maintenance and repairs and designs and safety regulations had been optimally in place, that there would have been no difference in the outcome.
however that also seems improbable. Out of the near three thousand who died it seems highly likely that some number of those died because of non optimal implementation of these factors and in that case there is some degree of culpability. It seems very very likely that some number of people died who could have been saved had all systems and procedures been carried out, and all safety regulations and training up to date.
Of course in such an accelerated catastrophe maybe there is no way to connect some failing with some particular death but that also seems unlikely. Surely there was someone who had a reasonable chance of being saved because (say) they were reasonably low in the building and were not able to escape due to some failure of the fire prevention system or perhaps a blockage of the stairs attributable to some failing of design or maintenance.
In this case there should be some kind of litigation. Certainly if my relatives had been killed in some event that was either preventable by some means I think i would pursue the corporations and public services and maybe individuals that were responsible. i guess there would be some kind of ‘case’ , which would possibly act as a stimulus for a deep enquiry.
My experience of such matters is that unlikely and insignificant details are often the lines of enquiry that ultimately become most productive.
So my question is- has there been any litigation connected with errors or failings related to the event?
surely that would be informative. Or has all litigation been suppressed and compensation given to victim families?
How was this process of enquiry at this level conducted? What can one infer about these matters?
My other strand of enquiry is into the failings of systems designed to prevent such attacks. There is no question that there will have been numerous risk analyses for such buildings and some attempt made to assess and foresee all the risks, and to create measures to minimise the damage and destruction. These must exist. Is there an assessment of the ability of the building to withstand such a shock?
what was the procedure in the intelligence community and defence community to prevent and protect.
My point is that at some position in thios prior information there must be some degree of incompetence and culpability and it is this that needs explored by enquiry.
I suppose my point is that endless grappling with the same details, of (ambiguous) smoke and dust clouds
seen on highly ambiguous video recordings is not very productive.
My own view of this is that this was a CUCU event. (Cock up and cover up) to avoid culpability and responsibility at a number of levels.
Deepgreenpuddock, thanks for hearing me; it gets lonely sometimes, you know?
The sort of failings displayed by the Twin Towers are a systemic consequence of capitalism and the market economy under inadequate regulation. It is ironic to see various supposed socialists on this thread reinforcing Trump’s statement on 9/11, pretending that the Twin Towers were supremely strong, just so they can promote their demolition theories.
At the time of the Twin Towers’ construction it was not possible to calculate the effects of aircraft strike. Nevertheless, assurances were given by the constructors to the Port Authority who commissioned the buildings. They were bald assertions, unaccompanied by even rudimentary calculations. This is recorded in the NIST report NCSTAR 1. NIST were legally precluded from attributing blame by an act passed in May 2002, but I regard the original assurances as fraudulent.
Directly attributable to inadequate investment are the deaths of hundreds of firefighters. The “Handy Talkie” communication radios their department had been issued with had inadequate channel capacity. Any large disaster requiring hundreds of firefighters would have inevitably resulted in confused and interrupted communication. Many firefighters never heard the warnings of structural instability of the Twin Towers, and consequently didn’t evacuate before collapse ensued. Yes, the collapses were anticipated by engineers observing the bowing at the damaged zones and the tilting of the sections above. I found this in the witness testimonies Maxter accuses me of ignoring.
Surviving victims and families of those killed on 9/11 made claims. All were paid compensation out of court, but were persuaded to drop further litigation. This implies a vast paper trail, apparently unexplored by conspiracy theorists who, as I’ve said before, are terribly lazy.
It has been reported (but I have not verified) that many senior officials were promoted after the 9/11 attacks. This is unconscionable, whether cock-up or conspiracy were involved (probably both, in my opinion).
There has clearly been a monstrous degree of cover-up. Therefore I retain a little sympathy for conspiracy theorists, but I wish they would realise that their efforts mostly tend to muddy the waters still further, and provide excuses for the government to avoid proper investigation. Ironically, one of the conspiracy theorists’ main targets, the NIST investigation into the Twin Towers, actually seems to be one of the most thorough pieces of investigation.
Kempe.
There have been accusations that people on this thread don’t challenge the preposterous claims of those on the same side of the argument. With that in mind, would you care to comment on the theory that WTC7 might have been demolished by explosives which were deployed on 9/11 when it became apparent that the building was damaged beyond repair?
In particular, I am keen to hear your thoughts on the feasibility of contacting and transporting to the location a team of steel-framed building demolition experts complete with all the materials, tools and blueprints they would need, of them researching the building design and subsequently planning and programming the placement and precision timing required for such work, and then deploying the explosives throughout a burning dangerously damaged building – all in a maximum 3 hour window after the decision to “pull” the building.
Kempe
If you rule out an impromptu demolition, please share you thoughts on the probability that there was a separate conspiracy to bring down WTC7 which was totally unconnected to the Saudi Arabian conspiracy to bring down WTCs 1 & 2. In this scenario, the WTC7 conspirators must have already had the building rigged for explosive demolition, ready to go at the touch of a button. If you are unable to put a figure on the probability, how about a verbal estimate of just how unlucky was Larry Silverstein?
There were over eight hours between the collapse of WTC2 and the collapse of WTC7.
Larry Silverstein never said that the building was to be “pulled”. What he did say – or rather what he later claimed to have said – was ambiguous:
– “I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, ‘We’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.’ And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse.”
Pull the building down or pull the firefighters out? Interestingly, FDNY Chief of Operations Daniel Nigro later had this to say:
– “I am well aware of Mr. Silverstein’s statement, but to the best of my recollection, I did not speak to him on that day and I do not recall anyone telling me that they did either. That doesn’t mean he could not have spoken to someone from FDNY, it just means that I am not aware of it.”
It is unlikely that a building would collapse from fire in so sudden and symmetrical a manner as WTC7 did. It is unlikely that WTC7 was rigged for demolition in under eight hours. It is also unlikely that a Zionist conspiracy pre-rigged demolition charges into three buildings, two rigged to collapse from the top down at less than free-fall acceleration after being hit by aircraft, and another to collapse from the bottom up at free-fall acceleration though not hit by an aircraft, leaked the latter impending demolition to local reporters or maybe Reuters or the BBC, and that one of the conspirators later alluded to this demolition as if it had been an impromptu demolition in an interview to PBS in 2002.
Obviously Node has a very serious point, and Kempe should respond because of Clark’s complaints about unchallenged bullshit.
WTF?
– “Pull the building down or pull the firefighters out?”
Which of these seems more relevant in the context:
– “We’ve had such terrible loss of life…”
“…And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse.”
This phrase was omitted from the BBC Conspiracy Files rendition of the quote if I remember rightly. I guess it suggests that Larry was not implying “pull back” or “pull out” but “pull it” (i.e. the building).
I agree that it is largely a matter of interpretation, and would say that both sides have been accused of misrepresentation.
What interests me more is Szamboti’s claim that Silverstein made an unambiguous reference to controlled demolition in another interview some years later. This seems to have been buried and so cannot be confirmed or refuted.
Ask John Kerry!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJsJjYwYOAA
So does this mean that Kerry was in or out of The Conspiracy? On the one hand, in answer to leading questions he seemed to say that WTC7’s collapse was an impromptu demolition. On the other he didn’t seem to know that he was supposed to keep it secret. In, out, or shake it all about?
For Clarks attention. Of course the term “pull it” is used extensively when evacuating a building, thats why they have fire alarm systems to alert people to “Pull” the building! Have I missed something?
As an ex serving firefighter, if a building had to be emptied of firefighters, we used acme thunderer whistles blown repeatedly and sharply (every firefighter is issued with one) to warn of an immediate evacuation requirement, not an immediate pull it requirement…nobody would know the meaning of a radio signal stating “pull” the building!
Maxter, good on you for serving as a firefighter.
Larry Silverstein was never a firefighter, so there is no reason that he’d have known not to use that term. He didn’t actually say that he’d said to “pull the building“, and according to Chief Nigro, he didn’t say any of it at all. Personally, I’d trust a chief firefighter of thirty years service more than I;d trust a rich property developer.
Node November 10, 16:05:
– “…the Saudi Arabian conspiracy to bring down WTCs 1 & 2.”
Buildings, buildings, buildings. It is an assumption that 9/11 was about buildings.
Kempe.
When a few days back you criticised Professor Hulsey and posted a photograph from the 1906 San Francisco earthquake of the Cowell building to prove him wrong, did you know where the photograph had come from? Did you know that earthquakes could have that effect on girders, fire or no fire? I would like to engage on this if you please because to have to go back more than a century to find such evidence seems like it only happens every 100 years or so. Or was your question rhetorical?
John, check the content at your link more carefully. The bent and twisted steelwork (notably figure 12) was caused by ramming, ie. impact from an object hurled by the tsunami. It was not caused directly by earthquake. In any case, it does not display the copious smooth curving of the steel from the Cowell Building fire.
Kempe’s link:
https://www.metabunk.org/files/Cowell-Building.jpg
John’s link:
http://www.eqclearinghouse.org/2011-03-11-sendai/2011/08/03/eeri-steel-structures-reconnaissance-group/
John, I made a mistake. I’ve posted an apology up-thread:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-99/#comment-636083
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSSwXvsEX_c
Donald Trump made his money in New York property development, so he has an obvious ulterior motive for saying that:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/trump-swam-in-mob-infested-waters-in-early-years-as-an-nyc-developer/2015/10/16/3c75b918-60a3-11e5-b38e-06883aacba64_story.html
– “As he fed the political machine, he also had to work with unions and companies known to be controlled by New York’s ruling mafia families, which had infiltrated the construction industry, according to court records, federal task force reports and newspaper accounts. No serious presidential candidate has ever had Trump’s depth of documented business relationships with mob-controlled entities.
[…]
As his ambitions expanded in the 1970s and 1980s, Trump had to contend with New York’s Cosa Nostra in order to complete his projects. By the 1980s, crime families had a hand in all aspects of the contracting industry, including labor unions, government inspections, building supplies and trash carting.
[…]
Nearly every major project in Manhattan during that period was built with mob involvement, according to court records and the organized crime task force’s report. That includes Trump Tower, the glittering 58-story skyscraper on Fifth Avenue, which was made of reinforced concrete”
You’d trust this man’s word, would you Maxter?
The Twin Towers were not only the tallest buildings ever at the time of their construction; they were also of a design never tried before, using only 60% as much steel as previous designs. They had no heavy steel cross-members, just lightweight floor assemblies. NIST initiated new building regulations after 9/11 to rectify such deficiencies:
https://www.nist.gov/sites/default/files/documents/el/disasterstudies/wtc/WTCRecommendationsStatusTable.pdf
https://www.nist.gov/node/633731
Maxter, I just saw your comment above that you served s a firefighter.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-99/#comment-636541
Respect to you for that. Trump, on the other hand, seems to be a slime who’s made billions working with organised crime erecting the sort of inadequate and potentially dangerous buildings you’ve been brave enough to rescue people from.
NIST initiated new building regulations after 9/11
Clark, you use these words as though they are interchangeable. They’re not.
Recommendation (def) : a suggestion or proposal …
Regulation (def) : a rule or directive made and maintained by an authority …
Legislation (def) : law(s) made by a government …
Standard (def) : measure, norm, or model in comparative evaluations …
Node, kindly don’t waste my time nor mislead other people. Look up how the system of “model codes” works in the US and post it to inform all who read. Hint; US states each have their own legislation. It’s not like in the UK, and the book you need is not the dictionary.
Clark : NIST initiated new building regulations after 9/11
Wikipedia : The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is a measurement standards laboratory, and a non-regulatory agency of the United States Department of Commerce.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Institute_of_Standards_and_Technology
C’mon Node, what are you saying? That there is no regulatory procedure? No, bit of an own goal to say that. That NIST was the wrong body? That nothing has been implemented in certain or all states because “they” all know it was really demolition? Are you pulling my leg? Can’t you cut to the chase an find out and post which national and state bodies have or have not updated their codes? Or do you mean that I should do it?
C’mon Node, what are you saying?
I am saying you wrongly quoted me as talking about “standards” when I was talking about “regulations.”
I am saying you wrongly described NIST’s recommendations as “regulations.”
I am speculating that these two instances are deliberate.
I am saying that there have been no significant changes in building regulations as a result of 9/11 and that I have repeatedly fact-checked this with Kempe. I can’t find any. Kempe tried even harder and he can’t find any. Thanks Kempe, that’s why I value your presence on this blog.
Oh so Kempe should do it.
No nothing deliberate about my wording. How much time do you expect me to spend when I have x pages of bullshit by y commenters to read and respond to? I have only a vague idea of how the US system works, but I assume it does work, eventually. NIST recommend or set Best Practice or something, ASCE or someone draw up “model codes”, and states and maybe other authorities implement actual codes based on those models, or something like that. Why don’t you post the procedure, along with examples of previous uptake? At least that’d be informative.
And why ask Kempe, for heaven’s sake? Ask Google.
Oh so Kempe should do it.
Do you actually read what people say before you reply to them? Kempe has tried and failed (past tense) to disprove my assertion.
How much time do you expect me to spend when I have x pages of bullshit by y commenters to read and respond to?
What? You think that’s an excuse for misquoting people and making misleading statements? Write less and make it accurate.
Why don’t you post the procedure, along with examples of previous uptake? At least that’d be informative.
Why don’t you stop telling other posters how they should behave and concentrate on improving your own contributions
And why ask Kempe, for heaven’s sake? Ask Google.
I thought that was obvious. Kempe is hostile to my point of view. When he can’t find a single example to disprove my assertion he can’t be accused of confirmation bias. He has access to a wide range of “9/11 debunking” arguments but they haven’t helped him either. He’s really very good at what he does. I’m confident that if there were any significant changes in building regulations as a result of 9/11, Kempe would have posted them.
He also knows when to keep his head down.
Kempe’s probably just away for the weekend, same as John Goss. The new WTC tower has implemented all the upgrades. Have you even looked at how many skyscrapers have been built since 2007?
Node, I’m really disappointed in you. So how many more conspirators does this necessitate? You’ll have everyone in on it but you eventually, and then maybe you’ll be forced to think of them as just people doing jobs.
Node, you can’t assume that Kempe’s part of the conspiracy, and then claim to have proven the existence of said conspiracy because Kempe hasn’t posted a specific “conspirator’s argument”. It’s like drowning some women to prove they aren’t witches.
No I just plain don’t believe it; no one’s that daft. The only possible explanation is that you never did believe in demolition; you’ve just been pulling everyone’s leg and having a laugh.
You’re not responding to what I said, you’re responding to what you think I think, and you’re totally missing the point. It’s a waste of time. Good night.
Well what I think you’re saying is something like this:
Since Kempe obviously works for a PR company or something that maintains the illusion of non-demolition, he’d know exactly where to find evidence that the state regulators had updated their building regulations to reflect NIST’s recommendations. Since Kempe hasn’t done so, no such updates exist, because all the state legislators and building inspectorates are in on it and know that the Twin Towers were demolished and that the NIST recommendations are just part of the cover-up.
Crazy as a jar of words.
Node, actually there was something very deliberate about my wording: “Initiated”. But if you say nothing has actually been done, then nothing has actually been done. That the new WTC Tower has cross beams and an uprated core that the Twin Towers lacked is just more cover, Kempe’s a very clever agent and demolition is the most likely explanation. Happy now?
Craig
You have been silent for some time.
Have you watched any of the A&E for Truth material?
or this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBAlxJVwMgc&feature=share
or this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DOnAn_PX6M
Were any of this to be broadcast on mainstream media, what impact do you judge it would have?
If this report is true, we may be about to find out a lot more about 9/11: Trump: I’m Reopening 9/11 Investigation:
Trump of course knows a lot about buildings in New York, and has not doubt heard all sorts of rumors.
I hope Trump has good security. This news may make the plutocracy come gunning for him.
Beware, Lysias, there’s something dodgy about this story. I was trying to pin down the original quote, and I found this :
https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-donald-trump-promises-to-reopen-9-11-probe-fake-news.t8144/
Node, thanks for finding that. Maybe don’t need to burn the graduation photographs yet.
Hi Node. There are a few fake sites which take news items add bogus content and stretch them to beyond the realms of credibility. However people continue to believe them because they trust what they read. American News, Earth News and Conservative Daily Post are among these. Another one, quite new and very pro-Trump, is called Extra Club Magazine which appears to be of a similar ilk.
Having said that I have heard Donald Trump on Russia Today say that you will find out who did 9/11. He talked about the redacted pages of the report. It might be the Saudis he said. Trump, one of whose business ventures is in structurally-engineered skyscrapers, never believed that the planes caused the damage they did. This is an interview with him on 9/11. He certainly understands something about physics and engineering and he may well, if allowed, reopen an investigation into what was the real cause of the collapse of the twin towers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rt-ldMj9y9w
No wonder so many of the power elite are opposed to him becoming president. I fear for his life.
John, you asked me to watch a video:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-99/#comment-636037
I watched it and am awaiting the chance to discuss it, and matters arising:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-99/#comment-636555
Trump Victory Raises Hopes of Coal Making a Comeback:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-victory-raises-hopes-of-coal-making-a-comeback-1478706531?mod=wsj_nview_latest
Might be time to burn your Ph.Ds, Amerika. This could be it; the objective of the seeded New World Order conspiracy theory.
I am sorry Clark. I cannot discuss with you because you have a myopic vision as far as 9/11 is concerned. Anybody who has tried to discuss with you has been driven away by your dogma and your blinkered belief in the verity of what you perceive to be true to the exclusion of everything else, and everyone else’s point of view. Another commenter has left this week. Like I say I will continue to watch the discussion on this thread to see if your attitude changes, but I haven’t noticed any change as of yet.
When you get your head round Newton’s third law we may have a basis for debate. In the video above Donald Trump is as bewildered as most as to why planes penetrated the twin towers strong outer steel structure. His engineer, who took him to see the aftermath of the 1993 bomb, in the basement is one of those people you appear to be blaming for taking shortcuts. So I suppose you consider Trump one of the New York Mafia who encouraged the engineer to take shortcuts.
Get an aluminium beer can, fill it with lighter fuel, light the blue touchpaper, and catapult it at some closely strutted wrought iron railings. Watch it make a perfectly-formed round hole leaving no trace of itself behind. That is roughly what you are asking people to believe. It’s ludicrous. Sorry. On 9/11 you cannot be helped. Not until you go back to basic science.
As I understand it, Newton’s third law is that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. It refers to forces acting upon idealised objects. If this is so, then by your own word we have a basis for debate. Now let’s see how honest you were being.
Please re-scale your analogy of an aluminium can and iron railings. If the can were scaled to the size of an airliner, how would the railings compare to the perimeter columns of the Twin Towers? Is this realistic? Were the perimeter columns solid? I am sure that you could do the maths and answer these questions. I am equally sure that you will silently refuse. Your motivation I leave for readers’ speculation.
You accuse me of being myopic, dogmatic, blinkered, ignorant of basic science and beyond help. But it is YOU that is refusing to debate. I therefore object to your accusations. You should either retract them, or engage in debate.
Although with the aluminium can I was being somewhat facetious I gave the example as a basis for the logic of an aircraft making a plane-shaped hole in the twin towers rather than the wings and tailplane falling off which is what would have happened. The flimsy tailplane would have been knocked straight off even if it were possible for the fuselage to have penetrated the I beams, which of course defies science anyway. But that is ancillary to the action and reaction of the top floors falling into the lower floors.
I am not going to repeat experiments that others have already used to disprove the ‘official’ NIST account. Try this. It is basic science, like Trump mentioned on the day. Did you watch it?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aw4GW977OmI
I suspect you won’t be convinced and continue pumping out the anti-science that has driven people away.
John, I’ve watched the video you linked.
Can you spot a problem with scaling when experimenting with models?
The video mentions the difficulty of melting steel with the fuels available in the Twin Towers. Do you argue that steel does not lose strength as its temperature increases?
The video claims that the Towers fell at free-fall acceleration. What is your opinion of David Chandler?
“Can you spot a problem with scaling when experimenting with models?”
The poor guy mentions this with his financial limitations and what have you. He makes a good stab at the constrution. But this is diversionary. The science is basic science whatever the scale.
“The video mentions the difficulty of melting steel with the fuels available in the Twin Towers. Do you argue that steel does not lose strength as its temperature increases?”
No. It anneals. But this will only happen where heat is applied. Further down the building there may be a tempering of the steel through heat transfer but probably only a floor (or so). This is basic. It is why blacksmiths use tongs. But it is only the red hot or white hot part of the steel that can be fashioned and as the video explains the temperature never got high enough to melt steel.
“The video claims that the Towers fell at free-fall acceleration. What is your opinion of David Chandler?”
I do not agree that the Towers fell at free-fall acceleration. But they were as near to free-fall as possible as the detonations went off down the buildings. WTC7 was different.
Now look Clark. I’ve answered these silly questions and it is these diversionary and digressive tactics which put people off. The guy, like all engineers and scientists, is working at the level of schoolboy physics, basic physics, something everybody has to accept or prove to be wrong and nobody has up to now.
Do you accept the premise of the videos? It is one simple question rooted in basic science.
John, I do mean a basic science problem with scaling, and I really can’t think of a way that even unlimited finance could help.
Please give a brief description of annealing, and please tell me your opinion of David Chandler.
This is why nobody will debate with you. I answer three questions. You don’t answer one. You just digress. Let me try again. And this is the last time if I do not get a satisfactory answer.
Do you accept the Newtonian premise of the videos?
Yes or no will suffice.
John, I accept Newton’s laws of motion, but before they can be related to assertions made in the video, we need to discuss matters of scaling. This is inherent in the Newtonian relationships themselves.
“Annealing” is a somewhat technical term. I’m just asking you to express it non-technically, so that non-technical readers can understand what is meant by it without having to look it up.
Let’s consider scaling with respect to the simple Newtonian relationship F=ma where F is force, m is mass and a is acceleration.
F scales with m, so no problem there, but what about a?
Acceleration does not enter into it if the structure below the damage is sound because Newton’s third law comes into effect and will arrest the rate of acceleration.
As regards annealing it is not my job to teach you metal engineering. There are plenty of books out there. Anyway it is a distraction. Basically during an annealing process metal is heated until it becomes more ductile with molecules going haywire. In terms of 911 this can only apply to areas where heat was applied, none or very few, of the floors below where the aircraft allegedly entered the building.
What happened with the twin towers was not possible in terms of Newton. Even NIST agrees with that premise because it was not possible to computer model it to any degree of satisfaction however hard they tried.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AeFRns8awAo
Until you can get your head round the basics there is no room for discussion. You say you agree with Newton’s third law and yet you seem to be doing everything to disprove it.
John, surely, acceleration has to be relevant to any consideration of acceleration. My understanding is that it is g, the acceleration due to gravity, relates mass to weight in the relationship weight=mg. I must have failed to understand your first paragraph. Sorry I’m so slow but please try again.
John, I’m asking you to explain technical terms that you introduce for the benefit of all readers. You introduced ‘annealing’. When I asked you to explain it you introduced another technical term, ‘increased ductility’. Do you agree that both involve softening of the affected material?
I could find no mention of NIST in the video you linked, and I was referring to David Chandler the physics teacher and member of A&E 9/11 Truth; I had never heard of David Chandler, Professor of International Relations at Westminster University, and he doesn’t seem to mention physics in that video. Please link the NIST statement to which you were referring.
“I could find no mention of NIST in the video you linked, and I was referring to David Chandler the physics teacher and member of A&E 9/11 Truth; I had never heard of David Chandler, Professor of International Relations at Westminster University, and he doesn’t seem to mention physics in that video. Please link the NIST statement to which you were referring.”
No you wouldn’t. Me neither. But don’t you think it strange that in a Google search this other David Chandler appears on the first page as though he was concerned about or connected with 9/11 and the title suggests he is too? Nevertheless I apologise for posting that link. I was in such a hurry to get out on the golf course while the weather remained good and I obviously never overwrote what was in the memory. This is the link I meant to include.
https://off-guardian.org/2016/09/07/on-the-physics-of-high-rise-building-collapses/
John, I’ve already read that article; I posted a comment about it some time back. It’s NIST’s own statement I was requesting.
Please express clearly and simply what it is that you think I don’t understand about the application of Newton’s laws of motion to the collapses of the Twin Towers. As you say, this is very basic physics. I have understood it since my early teens, and passed my physics exams rather well. If there is something obvious that I have overlooked you should be able to describe it quite simply.
The video you linked to in your comment of November 17, 19:29, Model Replica of the WTC on 9/11, repeatedly states that the burning fuel in his models did not melt steel. Please comment upon the significance or irrelevance of whether the fires in the Twin Towers could melt steel or not. NIST’s collapse model does not claim that the fires melted steel. It does claim that the strength of the steel at the damaged zones decreased due to the heat of the fires. Do your references to annealing and ductility confirm that you accept this? Please also note that the soup cans were complete and undamaged before the experiment began. Would you be so kind as to scale up the soup cans to the approximate dimensions of the Twin Towers so that we can compare the relative quantities of steel?
Using the search term “david chandler 9/11” without the quotes, all results on the first page concerned David Chandler of A&E 9/11 Truth. However, I have a relatively strict cookie policy, and I delete cookies and change IP address frequently. I expect that Google responds differently to our different system configurations.
John, in your comment of November 17 at 19:29 you asserted this:
– “…rather than the wings and tailplane falling off which is what would have happened”
This seems unlikely for two reasons. (1) Lift and control surfaces are not flimsy. The wings lift the entire weight of the aircraft, and the tail has to exert major forces upon the whole aircraft in order to manoeuvre it. These parts need to withstand air speeds of hundreds of miles per hour. (2) The wings and tail carry kinetic energy and momentum just as the fuselage does.
Or is my physics at fault again?
Clark I am having to scroll back too far to reply. Yes, your physics about aircraft not breaking up when they hit something hard is faulty. I will try to explain in a new comment.
I think this will be of interest here;
http://members5.boardhost.com/xxxxx/thread/1479037176.html
That photo is the impact of the second aircraft, upon WTC2. The full resolution is truly stunning, available on this direct URL:
https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/616f0664a3c20110bda91768093995d0741a9ad0/0_164_4924_2955/master/4924.jpg
Apologies if the direct link gives you a “Security Certificate” warnings – it didn’t for me, but I’d visited the article first. It’s safe to “add a temporary exception” so long as you’re not going to submit any personal data to i.guim.co.uk
The impact created conditions similar to a “fuel-air bomb” or thermobaric weapon:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel-air_bomb
– ” Thermobaric weapons have the longest sustained blast wave and most destructive force of any known explosive, excluding nuclear weapons”
so it’s no surprise that it blew a lot of stuff off, and out of, the South Tower. This may well account for fragments of bone found on distant rooftops. In the high resolution photo you can see many pieces of the aluminium cladding that covered the outside of the Towers’ steel columns. You can also see these aluminium channels in photos and videos of the debris on the ground around the Twin Towers’ bases, before WTC2’s collapse covered them with other debris and dust.
– “The impact created conditions similar to a “fuel-air bomb” or thermobaric weapon”
I need to qualify this. I have since discovered that official investigations claim to have found no evidence for over-pressure greater than 1psi, which is much lower than would be produced by a fuel-air bomb. Presumably, the fuel was not well enough mixed with air to produce widespread fuel-air bomb conditions.
@ Clark
I expressly said that in linking to the Consensus webpage I was not trying to put forward an argument for CD. You cannot help but interpret it as one.
I was merely trying to diffuse the trenchant opposition on this forum between opinions such as ‘controlled demolition theory is a psyop created to distract serious inquiry into 911’.
If you notice the panel members include people such as :
Mr. Ferdinando Imposimato is the Honorary President of the Italian Supreme Court and a former Italian senior investigative judge. He presided over several terrorism-related cases, including the kidnapping and assassination of President Aldo Moro and the attempted assassination of Pope John Paul II. He was also a legal consultant to the United Nations. He has stated publicly that 9/11 was a false flag operation, recommending that it be tried at the International Criminal Court, which was set up to protect the world from criminal acts of war. He has also written the books, “La Grande Menzogna [The Big Lie],” “Terrorismo internazionale [International Terrorism],” and “I 55 giorni che hanno cambiato l’Italia [The 55 Days That Changed Italy],” about the Aldo Moro case.
William F. Pepper is a Barrister, called in 1991 to the Bar of England and Wales, and an Attorney at Law in the United States, specializing in international human rights. He represented Dr. Martin Luther King’s family in a civil action which revealed the truth about the assassination, including the innocence of King’s alleged assassin, James Earl Ray, whom he also represented. He is a past Convener of the Seminar in International Human Rights at the University of Oxford, England. Though not an investigator of the 9/11 tragedy, he has long been an advocate for a comprehensive, independent investigation of that event which he believes would be the best memorial to those who lost their lives, and the fulfillment of an outstanding obligation to their families whose questions remain unanswered.
…I think it would be a psyop so elaborate that it precludes its own plausibility.
If you want to engage people here in the hope of correcting errors of reasoning, or pointing out unreliable evidence, without really pissing them off, then it might be worth reading a bit about who supports that reasoning, and who else has evaluated that evidence. If you are blase about being confrontational then don’t be surprised if you get accused of all sorts of malicious things.
I would also suggest that you avoid everything to do with 911 if you are depressed, as it is probably one of the most depressing subjects I have come across.
This is my last post here. I recently read through all the comments of the 8 months since I first visited. I cannot say that I have learned nothing, but I have not learned much. I think that there is a need for correction and discipline in the critical perspectives of 911, and so have read your many comments with interest. I cannot say that I have been convinced by your arguments. In several instances I don’t think you are any less prone to confirmation bias and sophistry than some of the looser comments from CD advocates.
CD hypothesis is not a psyop. It is a disagreement, that cannot be resolved within the institutional structures that have historically been relied upon to resolve such matters. I agree with your comment that the dispute can only be resolved by the upholding of the principles of science : the release of all relevant data and evidence for public scrutiny, the testing of hypotheses through repeat-ability.
Mog, if you’re replying to my comment here:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-99/#comment-636615
I didn’t mean to suggest that you were linking to consensus911.org in support of demolition. I was just using my experience of demolition arguments to estimate the overall quality of reasoning I might find at the site.
I don’t really propose that demolition theory is necessarily a psyop. I think the possibility should be borne in mind, and that there are obviously parties who benefit from the circulation of such memes – the Saudi press has used them explicitly, for instance, and they tend to draw heat away from the New York Mafia construction racket.
I’m glad you’ve learned some stuff. I’ve been learning too. Thanks for the chat.
I found this interesting account of deficient design and construction of the Citigroup Center, 601 Lexington Avenue:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citigroup_Center#Engineering_crisis_of_1978
Demolition theorists will probably seize upon it because the building was modified secretly:
– “Ultimately, he persuaded Citicorp to repair the building without informing the public, a task made easier by a press strike, then going on. For the next three months, construction crews working at night welded 2″ steel plates over each of the skyscraper’s 200 bolted joints. They worked during the night, after each work day, almost unknown to the general public”
And an interesting account of WTC1 swaying in the wind:
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=197846
– “I felt the winds firsthand in the WTC, 99 floors up in the North Tower. I think it was early 1998 when we had a bunch of nasty winter storms roll through NYC (wasn’t that an el Niño year..?).
Anyway, one night, it was really windy outside, lots of snow. I was sitting in my cubicle, staring at my computer screen. I had a glass of water sitting on my desk and I watched it slide about an inch across my desk. I stood up and felt my body being rocked. You could truly feel the building move, and it felt like the building moved as one cohesive unit, because everything moved in a certain direction; in this case the winds were blowing north so the tower moved in that direction. And you could hear the building creak and shudder. Something on someones desk might fall over, occasionally a computer tower would fall over, but I never did get sick, nor did anyone else in my office.
The only thing unsettling about the whole thing was the concrete floors in those buildings were very thin, so you could feel the steel floor plates moving as well. “
Hey Clark, long time no speak. Hope you are well. I don’t think I’ve ever been on this thread, strangely, but I followed a link to it from John Goss today. (Hi John.) I see from reading a few comments you are not fan of the controlled demo argument, well I am, but after 15 years I guess you are pretty wedded to your view, and to be honest I am to mine too. So I won’t bother engaging on that but I would be genuinely interested to hear your view of the well-known CNN footage of Building 7 just before it collapses on which the firemen can be heard to say:
Keep your eye on that building, it’ll be coming down soon…The building is about to blow up, move it back…Here we are walking back. The building’s, about to blow up…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9CXQY-bZn4
What’s your interpretation of that? Sorry if this has been done to death on this thread, I haven’t read it.
Thanks
Hello KingofWelshNoir, good to see you.
I’ll cut to the chase first. Logically, Building 7’s collapse has no necessary bearing upon the collapses of the Twin Towers because it happened several hours later.
My personal interest is about physics. The Twin Towers show every symptom of collapse from: the inadequate, cheap design of the structure > corruption affecting construction > damage by aircraft > fire weakening the damaged zones > gravity. This is even confirmed by the details concealed, but referred to, in NIST NCSTAR 1. The clincher is the gradual bowing of the damaged perimeter followed by rapid buckling initiating collapse – I really don’t see any way that this could have been faked, especially by use of explosives:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJJPYTVjxug
Yes I have spotted the molten material flowing out. It is almost certainly molten lead from massive racks of lead-acid batteries, for uninterruptible power supply units for server computers, as worked out by an apparently independent investigator who corrected NIST on that matter.
http://undicisettembre.blogspot.co.uk/2007/06/ups-on-81st-floor-of-wtc2.html
Building 7’s collapse is fascinating and I’m still undecided, but if someone wanted to start widespread speculation that the Twin Towers didn’t just fall down, what better way to do it than a hasty decision to secretly demolish Building 7? No one was hurt so it’d be relatively easy to hush up; no issues of conscience. I’m about to go out so for now I’ll just refer you to my reply to the fine Brian Fujisan, my stargazing companion at the Doune the Rabbit Hole festival:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-97/#comment-627872
Thanks Clark
I am aware there is no logical link between the collapse of the Twin Towers and Building 7.
I asked because I have endured 15 years of endless dispute about the collapse of the Twins, but if Building 7 was a controlled demolition—and you seem to be accepting that it was or might have been—then the collapse of the Twins is almost beside the point. Someone must have wired Building 7, it couldn’t be done in a day and it coulnd’t possibly have been Al Qaeda. From that, all else follows.
Oh I don’t doubt “al Qaeda” or whatever they’re calling them this year. The various whistleblowers’ testimonies all point in that direction. The withheld names on the passenger manifests. The 28 redacted pages, a poor attempt to cover US exploitation of extremists – a typically limp cover-up. Chomsky’s logic. The Quincey Agreement and Truman’s rapid betrayal of it. All the blocked investigations. The silencing and rapid deportation of the Israeli spy ring; “how could they not have known?” The torture programme that corrupted the testimony. All these point to or are consistent with extremists under the Saudi-centred spell, and many strongly suggest that such operatives succeeded with help, either from within the US system or by penetration of official communication systems or both.
An opinion I’d like to hear on Building 7 would be that of military demolitions engineers; a few hours probably is long enough. Danny Jowenko’s throw-away line “they worked hard”. FEMA’s report of strangely eroded steel. On the other hand, do read the firefighters’ statements linked from one of my comments to Brian Fujisan. Building 7 was bulging and creaking. An instrument called a transit may have been measuring the rate of deformation. There are so many matters to follow up, and Those Who Prefer Not To Be Called Truthers keep throwing chaff into the mix as if it wasn’t already complicated enough.
And since when have “al Qaeda” type operatives worked without US backing? The situation in Syria demonstrates that the various labels mean next to nothing. It smells of “labelling after the event”. Deploy the firecrackers. Those that happen to jump towards “the enemy” label as “freedom fighters”. Those that happen to hit “our allies” label as “terrorists”.
‘…a few hours probably is long enough…’
It takes months to wire a building for a controlled demolition, there is no dispute about that, the information on it is voluminous and not seriously challenged. It’s a huge job, and that is with open access to the building. This would have had to have been done covertly, and in a building that numbered among its tenants offices of the CIA, Securities and exchange Commission and the Secret Service. As soon as you accept that it was brought down by CD, it blows the whole official narrative to Kingdom Come. And, I submit, if it had taken place on any other day in any other city no one would have doubted for a second that it was blown up. I mean, how else can you interpret the words clearly heard on the TV footage, ‘the building is about to blow up’?
As I said, I’d like the opinion of military demolitions operatives. Sure, a proper civil engineering demolition takes weeks, but I’d bet a small sum that a military demolition can be done in hours. The objectives are different. It’s worth taking weeks over civil demolition to ensure maximum safety of the team followed by a quick clean up. A military demolition merely destroys the target. Whatever happened to Building 7 was not a classic controlled demolition, despite the superficial appearance. It was on fire, for a start. Similar tall buildings are deconstructed, not “imploded”, and Building 7 damaged two other buildings when it fell.
The irony is, if WTC7 could fall as it did, as NIST said, due to column 79 dislocating from its seat, well, there are other means to dislocate a column, yes?
As to words spoken, well, there were multiple reports over the course of hours that Building 7 “was coming down, or would be taken down”. In your clip, “going to blow up” was said twice, “it’s coming down” was said twice. Excitable language on 9/11 can hardly be taken literally, so nothing conclusive there. Did you read the testimonies?
What some posters on this thread do not seem to acknowledge is the blatant political corruption behind 9/11.
If it weren’t for that you could perhaps say that 9/11 wasn’t an inside job.
But it’s there, right in your face, from the totally corrupt election of Bush Jnr as President, to PNAC and all the rest of it that posters in this thread will be very well familiar with.
I’m afraid we don’t live in Disney Land, folks.
Sufficiently specific and documented evidence of corruption is always useful. However, rumour and false leads tend to weaken traction.
You make it too easy, Clark:
Iraq… weapons of mass destruction… et al… all brought to you by exactly the same psychopaths (repeat, *exactly the same psychopaths*) who gave you the official narrative of 9/11.
I don’t agree, Rob. Thousands, probably tens of thousands were involved in reporting and investigating 9/11. Just a couple of handfuls fabricated the WMD “intelligence”, and NIST, for example, weren’t among them. And they didn’t even really get away with the fabrication, did they? That it was fabricated was widely known; a couple of million of us worldwide were out protesting in mid February.
Clark, I appreciate your disagreements. This 9/11 thread is not one I dip into frequently, but you know me: I like a good arguement.
You’ve had your say, and I’ve had my say. If we want the arguement/discussion to progress we perhaps both need to hold breath for a while and listen to what other people have to say.
I could of course link this to the stuff that’s been released recently about the Clintons (by Wikileaks), but that is verboten in the totally closed society that is USUK:
It’s all normal…
It’s all normal…
It’s all normal…
Keep on repeating ad infinitum and people might actually believe it.
What I would say is that *exactly the same psychopaths* have backed very similar indoctrinated extremists over and over again.
Not exactly in the same league although it does raise the question of how those allegedly responsible for the highly complex operation and deception around 9/11 were incapable of making a believable case for war in Iraq and couldn’t even plant any convincing WMDs in the country post invasion. Perhaps they gave that job to an intern.
It also raises why nothing about 9/11 has been revealed by Wikileaks, Snowden et al. Planning an operation like that would’ve involved thousands of people and generated vast amounts of communications but 15 years on.
Nothing.
Kempe, I agree with your overall argument especially as regards alleged demolition of the Twin Towers, but I have to disagree with this:
– “…but 15 years on. Nothing”
The Bush administration were very reluctant to hold an inquiry. When they at last relented, they tried to put Kissinger in charge. Although pressured otherwise, they nonetheless under-funded the Commission and gave it inadequate legal powers. Senior members of the Commission complained of lack of cooperation from many called to testify, and said that the Commission was “set up to fail”.
It’s pretty bloody obvious that there was a major cover-up. Even your own investigation revealed decaying, inadequately maintained fireproofing which goes essentially unmentioned in NCSTAR 1.
Planning an operation like that would’ve involved thousands of people and generated vast amounts of communications ….
Nonsense. Clark could organise it at a moment’s notice in one afternoon. He might need a mobile phone.
Afraid the endless jaw-boning about how and why the buildings collapsed will never be known for certain, so it is better to forget about it, and move on.
Message from the perpetrators :
Trowbridge didn’t say “stop investigating 9/11”. He said stop speculating about buildings, and he’s right. He has an interesting theory about 9/11 but I doubt we’ll persuade him to post it.
Fifteen years, thirty years; it’s only a factor of two.
Thanks, Craig.
Wrote a short precios of my theory, but when I went to post it, my laptop was taken over by some alien force, probably the NSA.
Will try again soon, but don’t think will work.
Do you know how I can save posts which cannot be posted?
Preventative method – write your comment in a text editor, then copy and paste into the comment form. If the comment doesn’t post, you still have the original in the text editor. On Mac the text editor is called TextEdit and is in either Utilities or Applications. On Windows the text editor is called Notepad; go Start > All Programs > Accessories > Notepad.
Remedial method – if you post your comment but it doesn’t appear, you can sometimes get it back by taking your browser off-line (File > Work Offline) and then clicking the back button. Sometimes this works without having to take the browser off-line. You may need “Preferences > Privacy > Remember search and form history” checked to make it work. The preventative method is more reliable.
Craig and I both have five-letter names beginning with C. I get called Clive quite often too.
Thanks, Clark, for the help.
Had a long day yesterday, and didn’t notice that I had called you Craig.
Sorry.
Trowbridge, all cool. I wasn’t ticking you off. It’s just that one of the wild theorists on this thread had some weird idea that I’m a sock-puppet for Craig, and having seen how fast rumours get spread I thought I’d better state otherwise.
A clip that covers the absolute total bollocks about “70,000 moderate rebels in Syria” (the UK Parliament voted for military action on this lie under oath)…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViWrpevIjEI
But we still want to believe in unicorns and the official story of 9/11.
Al Qaeda in Syria – The Report
Peter Oborne investigates claims that Britain and the West embarked on an unspoken alliance of convenience with militant jihadi groups in an attempt to bring down the Assad regime. He hears how equipment supplied by the West to so called Syrian moderates has ended up in the hands of jihadis, and that Western sponsored rebels have fought alongside Al Qaeda. Also examines the astonishing attempt to re brand Al Nusra, Al Qaeda’s Syrian affiliate, as an organisation with which we can do business.
Contributions from Alastair Crooke, Gareth Peirce, Moazzam Begg, Robert Ford.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06s0qy9
http://open.live.bbc.co.uk/mediaselector/5/redir/version/2.0/mediaset/audio-nondrm-download/proto/http/vpid/p03cdj2z.mp3
I think they got the script for your clip from Craig:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2015/11/cameron-overreaches-with-70000-claim-nobody-believes/
– “Cameron is in serious trouble at Westminster after overreaching himself by the claim that there are 70,000 “moderate rebels” willing to take up the ground war with Isis. Quite literally not one single MP believes him. There are those who believe the lie is justified. But even they know it is a lie.
There is a very interesting parallel here with the claims over Iraqi WMD. The 70,000 figure has again been approved by the Joint Intelligence Committee, with a strong push from MI6. But exactly as with Iraqi WMD, there were strong objections from the less “political” Defence Intelligence, and caveats inserted.
[…]
The truth is the military tends to be much more honest about these matters than the spooks. Rather than make the same mistake again, parliamentarians should be calling Laurie’s successor, Air Marshal Philip Osborn, to ask him the truth about the nature, composition and availability of the 70,000. I happen to know that signals of dissent from Osborn’s staff – quite probably with his blessing – are reaching not just me, but many Tory MPs”
Policy #6688: “Use of UK Military Forces Overseas”
http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/policy.php?id=6688
Commons 21 Mar 2011 United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 — Libya — No Fly Zone Majority (strong)
Commons 29 Aug 2013 Syria and the Use of Chemical Weapons minority
Commons 29 Aug 2013 Syria and the Use of Chemical Weapons minority
Commons 26 Sep 2014 UK Air Strikes Against ISIL in Iraq Majority (strong)
Commons 2 Dec 2015 UK Airstrikes Against ISIL in Syria — Decline to Authorise Majority (strong)
Commons 2 Dec 2015 UK Airstrikes Against ISIL in Syria Majority (strong)
In 2013, enough of us kicked up a stink.
‘History Commons Groups: New 9/11 Timeline Entries: Training Exercises in New York, Fighter Jets’ Response on 9/11, Suspicious Man Arrested, and More’: https://hcgroups.wordpress.com/
History Commons seems to be an excellent resource. The trouble is that there are so many links, so many strands of story, that you could spend a lifetime browsing. For instance, the story of the “Middle Eastern looking” man with the toy rabbit is fascinating, but I’ve no idea what to make of it.
One thing is clear, however. Official excuses that no one could have anticipated that aircraft might be flown into buildings were entirely false.
Right, Clark, especially when Suzanne Jovin was writing in her senior thesis at Yale, thanks apparently to inside information which had been leaked to her, that Al-qaeda suicide bomber were going to do just that with planes, and she was brutally murdered for wanting to disclose this, one which still remains unsolved because of the coverps officials have required.
Here is the full history (almost minute by minute). It raises innumerable questions as to the official version.
http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&day_of_9/11=complete_911_timeline_world_trade_center
Above, at November 18, 10:22, I wrote: “History Commons seems to be an excellent resource”. However, my visit to John Goss’s link shows it to have been corrupted by 9/11 Truthers. I haven’t worked out what is going on yet. The previous link I had visited, I thought was a simple timeline with neutral comments describing the many links it contained. John Goss’s recent link is full of biased commentary and some very distorted stuff about William Rodriguez.
“Or is my physics at fault again?”
Regarding bits of plane falling off if a flimsy unstoppable aircraft were to hit an immovable skyscraper. It is not flimsy in terms of manouvreability in the air (where it is designed to be).
This is the when a B-25 bomber hit the Empire State Building in July 1945. Watch the video especially regarding the wreckage in the street and that which penetrated an artist’s studio. The bomber punched an 18 x 20 foot hole in the building.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzCygjiLMfw
Now consult the photograph you were eulogising about earlier, where your aluminium cladding is captured being jettisoned out in an admittedly incredible photograph, and tell me what parts of the alleged plane are in the picture? What plane wreckage was found in the streets below? Not a passenger seat. Not an oxygen mask. Not a suitcase. No evidence that a plane hit the building at all unless you believe the ludicrous pilot’s passport story and one or two later attempts to try to show there were planes involved.
https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/616f0664a3c20110bda91768093995d0741a9ad0/0_164_4924_2955/master/4924.jpg
What there is evidence of is very hot activity at certain points in the building and on certain pieces of debris flying from the building. These very hot points, where the heat is white hot, have aroused my interest because one of them is, if I am not mistaken at the very point from which later molten metal is seen to be flowing.
Fact is fact and fantasy physics is always difficult to prove.
(1) What is the maximum speed of a B25? How does the kinetic energy compare with the aircraft strikes on 9/11?
(2) Note from the newsreel how much more internal structure the Empire State building has compared with the open-plan Twin Towers. Note that in the Twin Towers, there was very little vertical obstruction between the perimeter and the core; just lightweight floor assemblies which were, of course, horizontal. Once the aircraft had breached the perimeter, there was virtually no obstruction until the core. Note that the new “framed tube” design employed for the Twin Towers used considerably less steel than traditional designs like the Empire State, and had no vertical concrete at all.
From the newsreel:
– “When the ‘plane hit the north side of the building parts of it jammed in the structure and some plummeted down the elevator shaft, while other parts of the B25 passed through the building, so great was the impact. […] Across the street, south of the building, parts of the plane hit a sculptor’s studio after crashing through the skyscraper“
A film of the Empire State Building under construction:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9C6AxFnbC7k
I haven’t checked the quantities of steel etc. used, but it just looks considerably more substantial than the Twin Towers. Note all the cross-beams, whereas the Twin Tower had only lightweight floor assemblies.
John, you seem to have forgotten about the other clarifications I requested:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-99/#comment-637812
and you still haven’t told me your opinion of Davis Chandler of A&E 9/11 Truth.
This is your problem. I am trying to get you to understand basic physics and engineering. Steel is stronger than aluminium. Your nonsense about once the aircraft has breached the structure is plainly that. You’ve got it the wrong way round. The structure would breach the aircraft.
It is pointless arguing with you. No amount of science is acceptable to you. You just digress. You can see aluminium cladding being blown off the building by an explosion but no aluminium aircraft parts which allegedly penetrated multiple I beams.
I’m out.
John, I feel that you’ve been treating me disrespectfully. I ask questions, I seek clarification, I try to be logical. You don’t answer, you change the subject, and you talk down to me. I doubt that you are aware of your own dishonesty.
John, the structure DID breach the aircraft. They were shredded, but they still ended up inside the buildings. That’s not a surprise; they were travelling as fast as some bullets do. Aircraft are not flimsy. The Twin Towers could withstand 100mph winds, but airliners are made to handle 600mph air speeds, and air resistance increases with the cube of velocity if I remember rightly.
I just got back from the pub. It’s not the closest; it’s about a 45 minute walk. There were only two other customers and the landlady.
The first thing was the Daily Mail’s headline. It said something like “Cancer Girl Frozen – In The Hope She May Live Again”. As soon as I saw it I said “that can’t be true”.
“Why?” asked the landlady.
“You can’t just freeze someone”, I said, “that’s murder”.
“She was already dead” said the landlady.
I regard the headline as dishonest. In my opinion, there’s a big difference between a girl, and the corpse of a girl. The headline should have read “Girl’s Corpse Frozen In The Hope She May Be Resurrected”, but of course that doesn’t have the same appeal…
Then I rolled a cigarette, and then discovered that I didn’t have my lighter. I asked for a light. The landlady claimed that there wasn’t one.
Now I just don’t believe her reply. I do not believe that there is no way to make a flame in that entire pub. There’s a wood-burning stove for a start, and I bet there are candles too. There’s an entire catering kitchen out the back, and living space upstairs. I feel that it’s an insult to my intelligence to claim that there is no way to make fire. I’d rather she’d just refused; said “I refuse to give you a light”, rather than dishonestly fobbing me off.
One of my biggest disappointments with the 9/11 “Truth” movement is how riddled with lies and deception it is. I think that a large proportion, probably a majority, of you “Truthers” have actually decided to be dishonest and manipulative. You all complain that the “official story” is full of deception, but you’ve decided to counter it with deception of your own.
Think about this for a minute. By what authority do you define your deception to be better than anyone else’s? The only possible justification is that you believe yourself to be better than others; both those whose account you claim to be dishonest, and those you try to convince otherwise, ie. Joe Public. But everyone feels themselves to be superior; it is merely a consequence of evolution, of “survival of the fittest”. If you claim to believe in equality, you have to practice honesty. To do otherwise is hypocritical.
I think that the human crisis consists in large part of dishonesty. Most people are so accustomed to dishonesty, it is such a comfortable habit to warp facts, either by omission, selective emphasis, distortion or outright fabrication, that it feels entirely natural. Honesty can only be cultivated as a habit. Honest people are such a threat to the vast majority that honesty is now characterised as a mental illness called Asperger’s syndrome.
But nature takes no prisoners and has no mercy. We have to face the facts of our existence on this planet, or our corruption will corrupt our environment to such an extent that huge swathes of us will be wiped out. Belief systems cannot be countered with other belief systems. The only remedy is the system of comprehensive disbelief, of testing all assertions against evidence, and cultivating the humility to accept facts.
“The only remedy is the system of comprehensive disbelief, of testing all assertions against evidence, and cultivating the humility to accept facts.”
Get in touch when you start to accept this sound advice.
There’s nothing funnier than being lectured about science by a truther. How we doing with those mini-nukes and ray guns?
This a picture of the damage to the Empire State after the B25 struck it in 1945. The floor girder has quite clearly been distorted (bent) and an upright dangles from it which can only have been severed and/or ripped from it’s fixings by the impact. The aircraft could’ve been as little as 1/10th the weight of the airliners involved in 9/11 and travelling less than half the speed and yet some wreckage still managed to penetrate several walls and pass right through the building.
http://imgur.com/GuhM212
Another NIST truther who knows naff all about physics or properties of metals. But then I expect it of you Kempe.
Kempe, superb photograph. Thank you.
John Goss, Kempe offers evidence and rational argument, but you return nothing but disrespect.
Here’s a direct link for the full resolution:
http://i.imgur.com/GuhM212.jpg
Look at the damage, John. Look at the thick concrete floor, bent upwards and cracked open to its steelwork. Look at the concrete or masonry façade. So much more substance, so much more mass than the Twin Towers, especially their perimeters, especially high up where the steel was lightest. And this impact imparted maybe a fiftieth of the kinetic energy of each strike on 9/11.
John, please start thinking and reasoning for yourself. I hold the views I do because they’re consistent, not to avoid cognitive dissonance or because they’re the “official story”. There’s nothing more noble about believing Truther websites than there is about accepting corporate propaganda. There’s more to exercising your intelligence than picking a side.
Kempe – “There’s nothing funnier than being lectured about science by a truther”
I wish I could share your humour. I find it depressing and infuriating. Humanity faces unprecedented crises, yet all around there is arrogance. I’m ashamed to be human.
There’s nothing more ironic than being lectured in realism by an orthodoxicant. How we doing with that rig-a-skyscraper-for-demolition-in-a-day theory?
“Larger or more complex structures can take up to six months of preparation to remove internal walls and wrap columns with fabric and fencing before firing the explosives.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Building_implosion
Node, I don’t know what happened to Building 7. I find all proposed scenarios less than satisfactory. And I see that you’ve quoted very selectively, in typical Truther fashion. The bit you omitted was “A simple structure like a chimney can be prepared for demolition in less than a day”. As I’ve said repeatedly, I’d like a perspective from military demolition engineers.
But what does it matter anyway? Building 7’s collapse hurt no one.
And I see that you’ve quoted very selectively
What a pathetic objection. Which better describes WTC7 : ““A simple structure like a chimney “ or “a larger or more complex structure”?
“But what does it matter anyway?”
It matters because Believers like you and Kempe have talked yourselves into a corner where either WTC7’s collapse was an incredible unconnected coincidence, or it was the result of an impromptu demolition – conceived of, planned and implemented within a few hours. The first is ridiculous, the second is just plain impossible (even for military engineers who just happened to be assembled nearby with all the necessary equipment).
Why didn’t you ask for matches, or anything to light your roll-up? You could have pointed out that there must be some method of igniting the fire. Did you read the article before you pronounced it couldn’t be true? Or do you just enjoy arguing for arguing’s sake?
‘…Think about this for a minute. By what authority do you define your deception to be better than anyone else’s? The only possible justification is that you believe yourself to be better than others; both those whose account you claim to be dishonest, and those you try to convince otherwise, ie. Joe Public. But everyone feels themselves to be superior; it is merely a consequence of evolution, of “survival of the fittest”….’
I don’t believe many (if any) of the people I try to convince that 9/11 was an ‘Inside Job’ think they know more about it than me; they just don’t want to know. They have far ‘better’ things to think about, like football, soaps, Quiz programmes, ‘Britains Got Talent’, ‘Reality’ shows or what they had or are having for dinner.
Paul, the headline was deceptive. I wouldn’t bother with the article because there is no importance in some well-off parents having their daughter’s corpse frozen; it is personal trivia, not news, but that’s the Daily Mail all over, making a spectacle of a few into a flood of distraction for the many.
I don’t always read articles all the through, or sometimes I read attentively so far but then just scan the rest. What matters to me is the intent. If an article is intended to inform, I pay attention. But many articles, and particularly videos, are clearly intended to convince me of some particular opinion, and they use various techniques to do so. They leave out facts that are relevant but which contradict the opinion being promoted. They quote out of context or even edit the quotation. They edit video clips as I pointed out in my fourth and fifth paragraphs here:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-99/#comment-635140
The “arguments” for demolition of the Twin Towers in large part consist of such manipulations. It seems disrespectful, because it assumes that people are not clever enough to notice. Well I have noticed and I’m speaking out.
Read your last paragraph again. It confirms my criticism, which you took back to front. In that paragraph you dismiss those around you as interested only in trivia. At least your audience take trivia trivially. Your own arguments inflate trivia to atrocity, such as cardboard packaging taken as evidence for demolition of the Twin Towers.