I know a guy who lives in DC and saw the plane hit the Pentagon. He says it was a plane. I believe him.

Given the tendency of conspiracy theorists to be woefully wrong, I choose to believe that the people grasping to straws out of desperation to believe in a unifying order that explains something (a very similar psychological process to the religious impulse, I find) are less credible than my friend.

Speculation about how it could not have happened, or was too difficult, is simply speculation.

See also: http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=6

For a comprehensive, impeccably researched and thouroughly referenced demolition of the Popular Mechanics special report, read David Griffin’s “Debunking 9/11 Debunking”, and other works by the same author.

Good idea.

9/11 conspiracy narratives often overlook the SE Asian angle, the Ramzi Yusuf cell operating here in Manila in the mid-nineties, which mixed up various explosive concoctions and actually tried them out on a flight to Japan.

http://www.fact-index.com/o/op/operation_bojinka.html

It’s all on the internet, but somehow does not register how international the 9/11 group was.

If you want people to reiterate what they have blogged ad nauseam for years with the come on you’ve given, your results may be less than optimum.

Nonetheless, I was eventually struck with the sardonic notion that, however ridiculous a false flag attack seemed at first blush, the idea that the administration should issue a conclusive description of what happened complete with responsible parties for an episode that killed all involved within hours…is a worse stretch yet.

So whatever one thinks happened, the fact that no standard air crash investigation was made – in fact the rubble was secreted away, a seeming unlawful action – has my skunk detector on high.

Add to that my generally low regard for what I consider de facto institutional psyops in society – Orwellianism – and you begin to understand my thought that wild fantasies are nonetheless no less credible than the paid arrant nonsense that is the media.

Len Hart caught my attention some years back because he was following my blog. He has continually produced volumes of material researched to the nines and available at http://existentialistcowboy.blogspot.com/ He is a guest blogger at Bluebloggin and also has posts at http://www.opednews.com/

911 Truth is another ‘find’ in the genre.

If you find these interesting, I have listed some that I have read somewhat and noted. See my index at my.opera.com/oldephartte/links “Collections Forwarded to Blogger”; Not ‘P.C.’ | NWO will be 911 oriented. “Perception Alteration” should be considered media bias related ideas.

Everybody spoofs ‘conspiracy theories’. One recent article outlined a number of cases in which they were accurate. Just sayin’.

Interesting. Me and the boys kicked this idea around last night..how we, as professional explosives experts (anyone who reads this blog will know I destroy land mines and UXO’s)would rig the WTC buildings to collapse.

After a few beers at the UN club and some technical discussions on explosive type, det cord length etc, we came to this conclusion.

We would need approx 1 tonne of semtex, 2.5 miles of det cord, several hundred electronic detonators and about 2 weeks to rig it all.

We would then ‘flash’ the detonation, eg, the explosives would be detonated in sequence every 3 floors, allowing the floors above to collapse downwards in a chain reaction, therefore allowing gravity and the sheer wieght of the building to do the job by itself.

However, as the blast wave from each charge moves at over 300 meters per second, it would blow out every window and door on the floor it was set, so you would actually be able to see the detonation with the naked eye, dust,rubble and blast wind fanning out from the building. This is not the case if you watch all the news footage of the buildings collapse.

Our opinion, crashing a large jet into a skyscraper is enough to weaken the main support structure in itself. Addition of large amounts of explosives would just be overkill.

Thanks for this Craig! I think it’s a very reasonable solution and you have my word that I won’t be bringing the subject up on other threads.

I also agree with you that there probably has been some CYA involved in the 9/11 Commission. In fact, as has been noted here, John Farmer who was part of the 9/11 Commission, has recently criticised the 9/11 Commission for what he thinks is the report’s favourable impression it gives of Bush and Cheney’s actions on the day.

There is no monolithic “official story”. This is an invention of the Truthers. There have been numerous independent investigations including by “Counterpunch” and controlled demolition experts and structural engineering facilities at universities and while there have been disagreements over the particulars there is widespread agreement on the essentials “19 guys hijacked planes and flew them into buildings which then collapsed as a result of the damage.”

The reason why those who disagree over the particulars are not Truthers is because they don’t hold to the articles of faith that a) it was an inside job and b) that the Twin Towers and Building 7 were demolished by explosives/thermite etc…

There is also a tendency for Truthers to get so carried away with looking into tiny anomalies that almost no one cares about that they completely lose the bigger picture. Barbara is completely correct in pointing out that Operation Bojinka is a far more relevant precedent that Operation Northwoods, because a) it was rehearsed and a Japanese passenger was killed on a flight from Manila b) It was conducted by Ramzi Yusef who also attempted to demolish the World Trade Center and c) Yusef was the nephew of Khalid Sheikh Muhammed the presumed mastermind of 9/11.

They also ignore the repeated threats made by bin Laden, his role in blowing up embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam, his involvement in the bombing of the USS Cole and his declaration of war on the US. (Instead they focus on some highly dubious article that is all but unsourced about him being visited in a Dubai hospital by the CIA).

As for the Pentagon, there may not be any photographs of the plane actually hitting the Pentagon but that couldn’t be expected on the video that was released because of the low number of frames per second of the camera. The security services are also, as any Truther can tell you, notoriously stingy about how much information they are willing to share.

Nevertheless there have been plenty of eyewitness accounts of the 757 hitting the Pentagon (although some of it has been mined and cropped by Truthers), plenty of photographs of the debris and even a book on the firefighting operation in which body parts from the planes are gruesomely described. Truthers will often say that any description that doesn’t fit with their theory has come from the goverment or is fabricated but these seem to me to be regular people giving THEIR account, THEIR story, not the “official story”.

“Yusef was the nephew of Khalid Sheikh Muhammed ”

Whoops! That is to say that Yusef was KSM’s uncle despite being younger.

No matter whether the buildings were properly constructed or not, the undisputed facts are that all three buildings collapsed in freefall time. Unless Newtonian physics were suspended in NY on 9/11, that implies that all of the potential energy the buildings possessed by virtue of their height had to be converted to kinetic energy to make it to the ground in the time they did. No further energy would be left to collapse the building and break the joints. It is impossible for the buildins to have collapsed of their own accord, particularly as the path was that of the greatest resistance

“No matter whether the buildings were properly constructed or not, the undisputed facts are that all three buildings collapsed in freefall time.”

I dispute that and so do thousands and thousands of others.

“It is impossible for the buildins to have collapsed of their own accord, particularly as the path was that of the greatest resistance”

The damage and fires helped out. Do I have to show this video again?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwFHEoiUZ7o

Please watch the video of buildings destroying themselves through the “path of greatest resistance”.

This is my and only post on this thread and i’m to even going to look at it again. This has to be one of Craig’s biggest blind spots. I’ll say no more…

P.S. Good luck ‘debating’ with the shills guys. Have fun! Ha ha ha.

Well I have to say that pretty much all the reasoning presented in this post is, to put it at its mildest, naive. So you spoke to ‘a friend in the construction industry’ eh? Try reading through the Architects and Engineers for Truth site – over 1,000 of some of the most highly qualified people on those types of building in the world. To dismiss their objections to the official narrative with ‘I spoke to a friend’ is not simply glib, it’s frankly childish – a bit like a 6 year old defending Santa Claus and the tooth fairy against his 8 year old sibling.

As for your other objections along the lines ‘someone would have objected and blown the whistle’. On the face of it they are indeed reassuring – even persuasive – but you are clearly NOT well read on the opposing literature. Would someone not have done the same these past 50 years on the JFK assassination for example – or maybe you still think that was the work of a mad lone assassin?

I have spent the best part of the past 3 years reading little else. I was drawn into it by the clear, simple principle which has always produced the the most telling and accurate results in any major criminal investigation, namely ‘Qui bono?’

This isn’t the place to rehearse the arguments, they are far too detailed, complex, counter-intuitive and downright scary for superficial treatment. Suffice to say that, dealing with the whole issue on a balance of probabilities basis, the official narrative -v- Deep State Agency orchestration/involvement runs somewhere around 10/90 to anyone who has given the matter serious studied attention. For sure the Keane-Hamilton report is as shot through with demonstrable wilful falsehoods and deliberate ommissions as ever the Warren Commission Report is.

As for it being ‘unthinkable’ that a government and/or its ‘Deep-State’ agencies simply ‘would not do such a thing’; I’m afraid we’re back in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy Land again. They HAVE done such things (ie attacking their own people in order to blame it on the enemy-du-jour for purposes which become crystal clear once ones childish blinkers are removed) on a regular basis and I’m surprised that a former UK ambassador should be so clearly unaware of the outrageous, sordid details of the whole post WWII Operation Gladio thing – for example.

9/11.

Isn’t it strange the way Obama is fighting for universal health care for all in gold ole US of A.

Maybe he should place images of all those sick ‘the first responders’ who are in the process of dying. Me thinks they deserve the title of ‘patriots’ and look how they are treated…NICE

There is a theorem in mathematics which says that if a continuous function has both positive and negative values then it has at least one zero value. It’s obvious. If you see a man walking down the street on one side of the road but looking again a moment later he is on the other, you will reason that he must have crossed the street at least once. Obvious though the result may seem, in pure mathematics one is nevertheless obliged to prove it, and occasionally proofs of the obvious can be difficult to find.

Imagine how much more difficult such proofs would be if the question were politicised, and one was required for respectability to deny the obvious; the function is never zero, and that man never crossed the street. 2+2=5. Ten floors fell on to 90 and crushed them out of existence – and as if they had never existed.

“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.”

Which begs the question: why is your friend not now converted to the much faster and cheaper option of blowing away a few floors near the top of the building, setting some office materials on fire, then just sitting back and letting nature take its course? It only takes a few hours, at most 19 people, and costs next to nothing in materials. He’d better get there before his competitors do!

@angrysoba.

Not possible mate, read my comments. No explosives used, if there were there would be evidence.

Why is the PR of the terrorists not more obvious?

When the Palestinians, or ETA, or the IRA committed an act of terrorism, it was owned up to, for the purpose of their politics; but for 9/11, we are left with speculation.

Ironic that Craig mentions the LAMPOST TOPPING flight into the Pentagon – as the photos of the day show them facing AWAY from the building, i.e. as if blown out.

If any one bit of the story fails then something other than the official line must of occured. There are dozens or more discrepancies that stretch logic and physics to incredulity.

Great idea for a post Craig- lateral thinking at its best

? ??? ??????? ? ???????-?? ?????????? ?? ??? ????

did someone mention thermite residue?

Craig how about a fish thread?

I think the phrase ‘Qui bono?’ is much too simplistic when looking at complex political issues. People all have different values, world views and expectations, so even if we were to assume that all actors are 100% ‘rational’ (which I most definitely don’t), it’s not hard to see that people could do some very counter productive things without even realising it. According to ‘Qui bono?’, during the Vietnam war, American war policy must have been secretly dictated by the Soviets, because waging war on Vietnam was disastrous for the US. I guess Watergate was thought up by the Democrats and they tricked Nixon into carrying it out.

“false flag”…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bv6EuukxqKQ

I was going to mention something that I know which most of you don’t. And this is something which will disgree with both groups, the inside Job group and the outside job group.

But I can’t because I have to get to a meeting now.

Bye.

I couldn’t resist. It’s ‘Invasion Of The Bodysnatching Shills’ and they seem to have got to Craig. Eek!

arsalan -

{xkcd.com/690/} A compromise?

Craig,

The reason I believed in the ‘conspiracy’- it all seemed too convenient for the Bush administration.

My thoughts were remote control planes. It didn’t seem plausible that a few people could take over a plane with a tin opener? That could have been kept between a few people couldn’t it?- Extra explosives could have been loaded onto the planes by a small team.

In situations like this it isn’t a case of how (comparable to a person?s own knowledge anyone can be fooled) but why, and who would get the most out of it…

How could Iraq and Afghanistan have happened without this crisis on American soil? How could the US have gotten any international sympathy?

How convenient that Bush, Cheney etc owned Mercenary companies, dealt in weapons, managed to buy so much gold, disguised the Enron fiasco?

Sigh. I believe in you as a person Craig. So perhaps it’s time to put this one to bed based on what you’ve said. Double Sigh.

But if anyone could have a stab at the questions above?

@arsalan

You sound like Fermat’s Last Theorem (deliberately?).

Writing in the margin of Diophantus’ Arithmetica: “It is impossible to separate a cube into two cubes, or a fourth power into two fourth powers, or in general, any power higher than the second into two like powers. I have discovered a truly marvellous proof of this, which this margin is too narrow to contain.”

@January.No thermite resedue was ever found despite extensive testing of rubble etc. Besides,thermite would not be suitable for collapsing a building such as the WTC. Personally, I love a good conspiracy theory..the Grassy Knoll, did we actually land on the Moon, Area 51, the Bigfoot to name but a few. Unfortunatly the WTC was just a tradgedy that happened due to a few fanatics. The buildings were so extensively damaged they needed no outside help to collapse.

Massive damage to internal structures and gravity was to blame.

Oh dear. I have nothing much to say on the topic, I could just have all left it alone, if it wasn’t for Craig’s “They couldn’t even keep Watergate quiet”.

Which is true, but they did a better job with the Iran/contra stuff, and an even neater one with the Libby trial. Watergate was a long time ago, and people seem to have learnt. Plus, of course, it seemed to depend on a functioning media.

“how about a fish thread?”

You might have to speak up a bit …

Craig,

I remain sceptical of ALL 9/11 theories, yours as well.

A doctor friend of mine, a psychiatrist, was convinced of the official line that Dr David Kelly committed suicide, in spite of there being circumstantial evidence to the contrary. His reasoning? That people of Dr Kelly’s age have a tendency to top themselves and Kelly was also under considerable stress. Ergo, no need to look further.

Your thinking seems to be in a similar vein: posit a vague generalisation and then rely on it to support your specific assertion.

There are conspiracies all the time. Hell, the Iraq invasion was one. Some get found out and publicised, some don’t. My view is that President Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy but almost 50 years after the event the true story is still unclear. Surely someone would have had scruples, etc, etc? Well, possibly not.

Here’s another incentive to keep quiet: you csan accept our payment of $20 million dollars to shut up or we’ll kill (and your family). I know which one I’d choose.

Mike Rogers

Craig, I’m disappointed but not surprised by your post. I think Sabretache summed up my feelings best.

“Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor.”

From the PNAC manifesto “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” – September 2000.

This is a rough outline of my understanding:

3 skyscapers exhibit an unprecedented rapid collapse phenomenon after being damaged by hijacked aircraft.

The 2 largest skyscrapers come down within minutes of each other despite significant difference in the height and internal pattern of initial damage.

3rd skyscraper’s unexpected rapid collapse is reported live, 20 odd minutes before it happens by CNN and BBC, this wasnt noticed till 1997. The BBC news editor blogs that is was just a cock-up.

The Pentagon was also hit by a hijacked aircraft perfoming some remarkable manuevers. It had no air defenses due to a wargame. Luckily it was struck squarely in its only section being refurbished, minimising loss of life and damage. Disbelief in the details of the event is later officialy responded to with a few extremely blurred frames of footage showing a white blur and explosive flash at the impact location.

Days following the attacks, a blurred yet very obviously fake video of Bin Laden is released claiming responsibility.

Following documentaries and official reports on the building collapses, misrepresent the buildings structure, the effect of fire, do not explain large amounts of molten steel encountered and photographed in the wreckage. Official reports on the collapse have repeatedly retracted and changed their hypothesis. The nature of the collapses are to this day unmodelled, and unexplained.

Hundreds of relevant academics and proffessionals have gone on record to criticise the official accounts and explainations.

http://williamrmullinsjr.com/myamerica/157/thermite-found-in-world-trade-center-rubble/

..and molten metal attest to the presence of something capable of melting steel..

@Craig: “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.”

@Frazer: “We would need approx 1 tonne of semtex, 2.5 miles of det cord, several hundred electronic detonators and about 2 weeks to rig it all.”

Much as I admire your perspicacity on many matters, Craig, you’re clearly not an engineer.

If you want an impressive account of what couldn’t have happened, what must have happened, and what’s still unknown because no proper, honest, unsteered, forensic and police investigation has yet been done, then — as others have suggested — find time if you can to study in depth David Ray Griffin’s accumulated work on this matter. You’ll warm to his intellectual honesty, his truthfulness, and his basic goodness. He’s like you, Craig. But on this matter, unlike you, he’s also right.

There’s a growing network of similarly impressive, calm, honest and competent minds with useful input to offer too; but you’ll come to them through studying David Griffin’s work.

Catch yourself on, mate. This is a hole in your credibility. But despite this one criticism, I’m still a fan who’s routing for all your honest truth-telling work. Keep at it, Craig! Cheers!

I’m with you on most things Craig, but not on this one.

It must be a Coincidence Theory!!

See ‘A Coincidence Theorists Guide To 911′:

http://preview.tinyurl.com/yajfj9o

@Frazer: “…the Grassy Knoll…”

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=8440302925206489846#

We have a Russian signed up – after a long contemplation -

?”???? ??????????

“Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? ? NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.”

NIST Responses to FAQs, August 2006

Criag, I’m sure you were just playing Devil’s advocate with your post.

Regardless of all the discussion of the physics of collapsing buildings and the rest, the most obvious question that needs to be properly answered is;

How is it possible for four sets of hijackers to take control of four planes and fly them for over 40 minutes within the USA domestic airspace and not be intercepted by fighter aircraft? The USA is the most technologically militarised country in the world. It is beyond any belief that the airforce would not have been on to them within ten minutes if normal operational procedures were followed. Also the pentagon has radar and anti-aircraft guns in place which would have shot the plane down before it hit.

I suggest you read David Ray Griffin’s books on this. He takes the whole thing to pieces bit by bit. Make up you own mind, however arguments such as this bloke in the pub said that you could do it with a few tons of TNT and some firecrackers are hardly science or a rigorous proof.

@Mark Golding.NTSB did test as part of thier investigation. @January, thanks I need no convincing on that one.

Remember the 1WTC, 2WTC were designed to withstand an off course aeroplane (a Boeing 707 I believe) flying into them according to the architect. I am assuming the buildings were constructed in accordance with the specifications.

The Top Ten Connections Between NIST and

Nano-Thermites

Kevin R. Ryan, 7-02-08

A selection of facts from this paper.

Hratch Semerjian, long-time director of NIST?s chemical division, was promoted to acting director of NIST in November 2004, and took over the WTC investigation until the completion of the report on the towers. Semerjian is closely linked to former NIST employee Michael Zachariah, perhaps the world?s most prominent expert on nano-thermites (Zachariah 2008). In fact, Semerjian and Zachariah co-authored ten papers that focus on nano-particles made of silica, ceramics and refractory particles. Zachariah was a major player in the Defense University Research Initiative on Nanotechnology (DURINT), a groundbreaking research effort for nano-thermites.

NIST has a long-standing partnership with NASA for the development of new nano-thermites and other nano-technological materials. In fact, Michael Zachariah coordinates this partnership (CNMM 2008).

In 2003, two years before the NIST WTC report was issued, the University of Maryland College Park (UMCP) and NIST signed a memorandum of understanding to develop nano-technologies like nano-thermites (NIST 2003). Together, NIST and UMCP have done much work on nano-thermites (NM2 2008).

NIST has their own Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology (CNST 2008). Additionally, NIST?s Reactive Flows Group did research on nanostructured materials and high temperature reactions in the mid-nineties (NRFG 1996).

So, I ask why was ground zero not treated as a crime scene and the ‘evidence’ quickly disposed of, in fact, shipped abroad to China, India or both I believe?

Disclaimer:

I am not a ‘conspiracy theorist’ or ‘truther’ I was a naval engineer and an electronics design engineer formally with Marconi.

As I think was plain, I started this thread so that those commenters who complain when I delete irrelevant 9/11 posts on other threads, can have a full say and not complain about being censored.

Craig,

In my judgement, the substance of your post indicates you are in denial about THE POSSIBILITY of 9/11 being “an inside job” and more specifically, of the collapses of the three WTC towers being “controlled demolitions”.

Why do I think so? Because of the way you are “corralling” to coin a term ?” drawing your statements into a tight circle that prevents an exploration of the facts and assertions as if they were wagons crossing the prarie that had just come under attack from a bunch of screaming injuns.

Indeed, your stance on 9/11 is quite similar to the stances taken by those who argue that David Kelly’s death was a suicide and that “we” did the right thing in getting rid of Saddam. You are not open to argument on the issue, you resort to the argument from incredulity, and you balk at the scale of the deception, let alone the Chutzpah, that would be required to brig off such a coup. In shot, you’ve been caught in an emotional trap that prevents you from thinking about the issue clearly,rationally and in accordance with the scientific method a la Carl Saga, et al.

But let me finish by flattering you a bit. To my mind you are like Luke Skywalker training to be a Jedi. You have learned how to move rocks and pile one atop another down in the swampland of Degoba. But when it comes to moving sunken X-wing out of the water by the power of thought, you just can’t wrap your head around it. “I can’t! It’s too big!” you cry out in desperation.

This is where David Ray Griffin, the truthers’ version of Master Yoda, steps up and gives his “size-matters-not” speech. 9/11 and David Kelly are no different! Only different in your mind. You must unlearned what you have learned.”

YOu know you are on the rigt path when you are calm. You know you are on the wrong path when you find yourself in agreement with Angrysoba.

Craig, we don’t want to loose you to the Dark Side!

Re Frazers advice:

“We would need approx 1 tonne of semtex, 2.5 miles of det cord, several hundred electronic detonators and about 2 weeks to rig it all.”

(explosive demo would require a lot of explosives expertly placed throughout the building)

“crashing a large jet into a skyscraper is enough to weaken the main support structure in itself. Addition of large amounts of explosives would just be overkill.”

(second thoughts, a plane crash in one bit would have sufficed)

@Frazer.

Yes, I agree with you that there were no explosives used in the collapse of the towers. I am not a Truther.

The video I showed was to demonstrate that, despite what is claimed by many Truthers, a building’s lower floors can indeed be crushed by its upper floors through the “path of greatest resistance”. The by-products will be puffs of air that look like “squibs” and even “pyroclastic clouds”.

A form of demolition called verinage is even predicated on the idea that this is perfectly possible.

Thanks also for adding your professional opinion about the amount of explosives and cabling necessary to bring down the towers.

No-one seems to be mentioning the large group of engineers and architects who say that the official story can’t be true: http://www.ae911truth.org/

The official story of collapse is patently absurd to my mind as the chances of asymmetrical damage causing a symmetrical collapse is vanishingly small.

What did actually happen? Well, I don’t know but I wouldn’t be at all surprised if there was some part of the Illegal Regime involved. They did, after all, manage to pull of a military coup without much fuss.

“This is the west, sir. When the legend becomes fact, print the legend”

“The Open Chemical Physics Journal”…

http://tinyurl.com/de6448

“Active Thermitic Material”…

tinyurl.com/d4yp5y

Funny how this issue has become more polarised over the years. Doesn’t anyone argue over LIHOP, MIHOP, and “Limited Hangouts” any more?

“It would just need too many people to be involved”.

Well yes, except that every day hundreds of people are flown from Las Vegas to work at Area 51. Not a single one says a word publicly about the nature of his or her work. Are we to conclude from this that Area 51 doesn’t exist?

“The notion that a small team at night could plant sufficient explosives embedded at key points, is laughable”

Why at night? Why not during the day, on one of the occasions during the previous months when thw WTC complex was swarming with workmen attending to ‘elevator maintenance’ and ‘recabling’?

“Buildings I strongly suspect are very often not as strong as they are supposed to be, with contractors skimping on apparently redundant protection”

If this were the case with WTC I suspect these dodgy contractors would have been found out much earlier. WTC was built using a ‘tube within a tube’ design. Two ‘tubes’ of steel, one inside the other. Elevator shafts were inside the inner tube, office space occupied the area between the inner and outer tubes. The design is incredibly strong and, being made from steel sections, it is resistant to fire or local damage. But it does have a potential weakness: if the inner tube moves laterally even fractionally within the outer tube then the result is calamity. To prevent this it is an absolute necessity to have strong horizontal beams at each floor level keeping the two tubes rigidly and immovably together.

The reason shoddy or skimpy construction would be found out is because of something far more commonplace and banal than crashing aeroplanes. It’s the wind. It may not seem much but think about it: the sides of those buildings acted as vast sails of several acres in area, every day testing the lateral rigidity of the design with a force far exceeding that of crashing planes. New York can get very high winds but the towers never buckled. Those towers were built to withstand a 150-year hurricane. That’s how much redundancy was built in.

“The sort of sordid thing you might not want too deeply investigated in the event of a national tragedy”

The only reason there is so much continuing debate about the cause of the collapse of the towers is that accident investigators never had a chance to inspect all the rubble. 80% of the steel was immediately cut into bars and sold as scrap to China and India. This was in clear and flagrant breach of the law, which requires that whenever a building in excess of 8 stories collapses the rubble must be retained for analysis. No ifs, no buts.

Sabretache, “I have spent the best part of the past 3 years reading little else. I was drawn into it by the clear, simple principle which has always produced the the most telling and accurate results in any major criminal investigation, namely ‘Qui bono?’”

With all respect, “cui bono” isn’t a particularly useful starting principle given that those responsible don’t always know how things would turn out.

Asking “who benefits?” throws up so many possibilities. It’s clearly not a sufficient principle to work out who was responsible.

For example, A “cui bono” case could be made for China. They’re now opening up copper mines in Afghanistan, have a Trans-Kazakhstan gas pipeline from Turkmenistan being developed and they can point to 9/11 to justify their suppression of Muslims in East Turkestan. They benefitted, so did they do it? Of course not.

A “cui bono” case could be made for David Ray Griffin. Before 9/11 he was an obscure theologian. After 9/11 he got to write six or seven or eight books on the subject and bask in the adulation of adolescent fantasy dissidents the world over. He benefitted, did he do it? Of course not.

But a “cui bono” argument can be made for Osama bin Laden too. He was on T-shirts the world over after 9/11 and jihadist groups the world over want to call themselves “Al-Qaeda in…”

So, not only can “cui bono” be used for a number of people, it is also guilty of the historian’s fallacy. Just because we know what happened after doesn’t mean that those who were responsible intended later events.

If a motive for bin Laden could be given then it is possible he would have thought of Hizbollah’s bombing of the US barracks in Lebanon and Reagan’s subsequent withdrawal from the country. He could have expected a similar retreat for the US following his own stike. He spelt out his intentions in his declaration of war and also with others in the article printed by al-Quds al-Arabi.

Dear Craig,

I don’t feel that you are looking at the events of 9/11 objectively. 9/11 is a very emotionally and politically charged event, that’s why we are scared to discuss such frightening notions as government complicity.

The Manhattan project was kept secret and that involved hundreds of people.

A government can vapourise 75,000 Japanese human beings but cares about its own people? Get real.

As for the WTC buildings, over 1,000 professionally qualified architects, structural engineers and scientists disagree with your short speculative analysis. See http://www.ae911truth.org/ and I highly recommend the presentation video you will find there by Richard Gage.

…Make that 150,000 Japanese human beings, but you get the point.

This comments thread is not the place to discuss 9/11; there are literally hundreds of discrepancies to discuss. Salient points will be lost in the noise.

“FBI says, it has ?No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11?…

http://tinyurl.com/z2uwf

Come and have your fun, boys and girls. Get it out of your system on this thread made specially for you, then, afterwards, we can all go back to the real world where the lying snakes in power would never consider any act so mean as conducting a terror attack on their own people just so that they could deliver Shock and Awe, murder hundreds of thousands, grab territory to build strategic bases for resources and world power, and make acceptable their inflation of military spending to astronomical levels.

“The video I showed was to demonstrate that, despite what is claimed by many Truthers, a building’s lower floors can indeed be crushed by its upper floors through the “path of greatest resistance”. The by-products will be puffs of air that look like “squibs” and even “pyroclastic clouds”.”

Angrysoba,

So at least you admit that there were phenomenna emerging from the sides of the buildings observed during the collapses of WTC 1 & 2 that “look like ‘squibs’” (the puffs sometimes seen when squibs explode)? Have we got your word of honour as a Decent on that one?

I think I must say I’m with Tim Groves on this.

Great compromise on the face of it , Craig. But a tad like the way the American ‘security’ people ‘enable’ ‘democratic protest’ in tiny little corrals well away from the object of their protest – and the media.

And like the UK which now dictates (dictates on pain of arrest for serious criminal offences) when/where one can exercise one’s legal and human rights to peacefully gather to demonstrate one’s dissatisfaction with the powers that be or whatever.

Maybe that’s going a bit far – because I for one need you to be our good-guy!

It’s a very fine line, I appreciate. But there is a difference between those who hijack/derail your posts and comments and those who, after much consideration, use the example of 9/11 and its many anomalies to connect dots to various world calamities in the here and now.

Personally, I have read the PNAC doc end to end, the various papers presented by e.g. all the various professionals for truth, as well as the official 9/11 Commission’s report (as well as the original doc in which the heinous Northwoods idea was posited)..

I’m afraid, for my money, the official version simply doesn’t hold up. There is ample evidence to indicate the ease with which a determined inner cadre can enrol thousands of people in such nefariousness.

You live in the UK…have you experienced the raw end of public services? I mean, REALLY experienced the conspiratorial way in which they stymie ordinary, decent, truth-seeking citizens, refusing service and denigrating various of us? And most of the people involved actually don’t have a clue they’ve been enrolled into such anti-citizen activities.

I’m not going to participate further on this thread because I believe the whole 9/11 project is intrinsically linked (in ways that will never become fully known as well as the more obvious ones – see Chilcot eg.) to all else you honestly blog about.

But at least I’ll know that you have your limitations too. Hey! You’re human!

“I started this thread so that those commenters who complain when I delete irrelevant 9/11 posts on other threads, can have a full say and not complain about being censored.”

Is this a slippery slope that ends up with threads about who murdered Princess D., whether the alien space lizards are in league with the little green men / Prince Philip / both of these, was it the Illuminati or the Freemasons who killed Kennedy, and any other gibberish anybody feels like making themselves a bore over in any other thread ?

People can get a thread here on their very own obsessions just by disrupting every other conversation ? There doesn’t have to be any end to this gameplaying at all, so long as gameplayers get what they come for.

Tell them to set up their own blogs and see what comments they get.

“With all respect, “cui bono” isn’t a particularly useful starting principle given that those responsible don’t always know how things would turn out.”

With out a great deal of respect, but I’m feeling generous enough not to errupt into outright insults just now, you do have the makings of what might grow up to be a point (if you give it a few years of intensive loving care) about “cui bono”. However, “cui bono” is the starting point for almost all criminal investigations where something was dun and we dunno who dunnit, innit?

On the other hand, while we’re going into Latin phrases, I think we should also consider Cui’s brother, “Sony Bono”. Did he really just ski into that tree or was there more to it?

The point is, my Irate Noodle, are you seriously suggesting that we dispense with “cui bono” as a principle of criminal investigation after all these millennia, or are you merely trying to make a single-case exception for 9/11? Riddle me that. And while were on the subject, would you like the laws of physics to be suspended for the big day too?

Why wouldn’t the US government encourage the 911 Truth movement. Never mind the

$708 billion Pentagon budget.

Sam,

you believe that

the whole 9/11 project is intrinsically linked (in ways that will never become fully known as well as the more obvious ones – see Chilcot eg.) to all else you honestly blog about.

You are entitled to believe that. others believe that the Protocols of Zion, Bilderberg, Templars, Freemasons and various other permutations are intrinsically linked to everything.

The idea that an underlying obsession – sorry cause , explains everything is not in my view in any of these cases sufficiently plausible to make it always on-topic. So off-topic deletion will apply.

“Is this a slippery slope that ends up with threads about who murdered Princess D., whether the alien space lizards are in league with the little green men / Prince Philip / both of these, was it the Illuminati or the Freemasons who killed Kennedy, and any other gibberish anybody feels like making themselves a bore over in any other thread ?”

That’s why Aristotle advocated the golden mean. Craig is doing his best to find a solution midway between total censorship and total anarchy. Let’s give him three cheers for that. You wouldn’t want to live in a world without any Gibberish at all, would you? Nor Balderdash, nor Bilge, nor Tosh, nor Gobbledegook, nor Piffle. Surely these delightful minority languages deserve to be treasured and protected?

Shoddy buildings like those were bound to come down sooner or later, so what’s all the fuss about?

As someone who has is an architect and and has a lot of knowledge regarding structure of a building i can confirm to you that it is entierly possible for a building to collapse when a plane is crashed into it. Skyscrapers are built with specific heavy loading but they are not built to take the impact of a 50 to 80 ton plance crashing into the side of them (how often does it happen?). The structure is usually fire proofed for at least 2hrs in a large building like this which gives enough time to evacuate everyone before the structural integrty is affected by the blaze. however, if the structure is damaged then this will reduce the fire resistance dramatically and reduce the structural integrity dramatically.

The impact and extra weight of the plane on the building alone could potentially bring it down but add fire to it and there is no doubt that it would collapse.

I don’t know a lot about explosive used in demolition so I will not comment on that theory although it seems doubtful as most demolition that I have seen you can see explosions from a mile away even if they’re in a huge plume of smoke.

Also I would like to make the point that David Ray Griffin is a theologist not a structural engineer or architect.

I know there are a lot of engineers and architect out there that believe the truther theory but from my experience there are a lot of crap architect and engineers who are desperate to promote themselves. Of the 1000 people signed up to the AE9/11truth website I haven’t seen one notable architect to give it credibility, most are students with architecture degrees. Also most of the engineers are mechanical, software or electrical all of whom have little or no structural engineering experience.

If you asked the majority of experienced architects and engineers what they thought I can bet you would get a similar answer to mine.

Richard Robinson

“is this a slippery slope…”

Probably.

@Tim GrovesYes there were puffs of air exiting sides of the building as it collapses. This is air compression caused by the buildings internal collapse and air bieng forced out of it through lift shafts,stairwells etcIf explosives were used, any demolition expert would have spotted it. Mind you, I keep an open mind on the subject.

Bigfoot isn’t a conspiracy theory, is it? But as people like Frazer so often want to conflate it with alternative accounts of 9/11, let’s accept it as such anyway. Along with the faked moon landings, the Loch Ness Monster, UFOs, lizard people, the Reichstag Fire and the Kennedy assassination.

But among all these 9/11 has a unique feature, aside from its obviously very grave political implications: it is the only case where evidence of at least one claim made by the conspiracy theorists is absolutely incontrovertible, and this claim alone almost inevitably requires involvement by elements of the US government or ‘security’ services.

It is physically impossible for WTC1 or WTC2 to have fallen as a result of the incidents we all witnessed. WTC7, though often touted by the ‘Truth’ movement as a smoking gun is in fact a red herring – the extent of damage to WTC7 is unknown and therefore no firm conclusions can be drawn as to why it collapsed.

However I can sympathise with Craig’s position: he is a public figure and many have been ruined by ridicule or slander for expressing doubts on the official account of 911. If I were in his position I too would be very careful how I expressed myself. I have watched with great embarrassment people like Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn simply evade the question – it doesn?t matter, they say. Wow! The slaughter by a state of 3000 of its own citizens in order to start wars which have killed millions is ‘unimportant’, a mere distraction from more useful activities? Chomsky and Zinn ordinarily occupy a much more radical position on the political spectrum than does Craig, and if there are things that they are scared to say, let?s not be too sore on Craig.

The great fear of angrysoba and his sponsors is that their strategy of suppression by ridicule, powerful though it is, might fail. It is quite a vulnerable strategy, as it is only necessary for a few prominent and respectable people to say that it is absolutely obvious that the two towers were brought down by controlled demolition, and then others like Craig will soon join them. There are now over 1000 architects and structural engineers who say that the towers could not have fallen for the reasons given, and controlled demolition is not just the most plausible hypothesis for their failure, but the only one. But you are required to believe that this sober array of masters degrees and doctorates are just a lot ?foaming, swivel-eyed conspiraloons?, to borrow a phrase from angrysoba.

That the official account of 9/11 has survived so long says a great deal about the nature of our public institutions ?” but that?s another deeply worrying matter.

“This is air compression caused by the buildings internal collapse and air bieng forced out of it through lift shafts,stairwells etc”

What air compression? The building was destroyed floor by floor from the top down. Each floor was converted to dust, which went outwards and upwards. The weight bearing down on the lower floors was diminishing as time went on.

“If explosives were used, any demolition expert would have spotted it”

There is a widespread view that thermite was used, which is not an explosive. It just cuts through steel very quickly and efficiently.

MJ,

A reasoned analysis and we have evidence from a British IT manager about the shut-downs for cabling.

Angrysoba,

I have seen your type of post so many times, it attempts to draw posters into a perpetual circle, your ‘cui bono’ is fog to induce the fog lights, trouble is when the fog is cleared those lights become an irritant.

@Craig, on your ‘The Partiality of Lord Goldsmith’ post: “Have removed another ludicrous diversion effort by Alan, and reply from Mark.”

Ah, yes, “ludicrous diversion”. You use Tony Blair’s expression -

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-4943675105275097719#

Vronsky,

As i said previously have a look at those degrees of the 1000 architects and engineers. There are no notable figures and a lot of the architects are not fully qualified and registered. This means they are probably students who don’t really know that much about construction of skyscrapers.

Also as i said before there are a lot of mechanical, electrical and software engineers who I can bet know very little about the structure of a skyscraper. Also just rememeber that there are hundreds of thousands if not millions of architect and engineers working throughout the world and only 1000 have signed up to this. thats not a lot…

“There is a widespread view that thermite was used, which is not an explosive. It just cuts through steel very quickly and efficiently”

So does a plane flying at a couple of hundred miles an hour.

“I can confirm to you that it is entierly possible for a building to collapse when a plane is crashed into it”

Chris from Glasgow: would you care to cite one example when a skyscraper has collapsed as a consequence of being hit by a plane (it has happened before) or, for that matter, as a result of fire?

“So does a plane flying at a couple of hundred miles an hour”

But that only accounts for the area of the impact, not the whole building.

Orwell: “How is it possible for four sets of hijackers to take control of four planes and fly them for over 40 minutes within the USA domestic airspace and not be intercepted by fighter aircraft?”

This is misleading as it suggests that there was an interval of forty minutes between the military being aware of a particular hijacking and the planes crashing.

“The USA is the most technologically militarised country in the world. It is beyond any belief that the airforce would not have been on to them within ten minutes if normal operational procedures were followed.”

I don’t know where you get that impression. The only “alert” stations were at Otis and Langley with a pair of fighters each. Otis scrambled its fighters to look for AA11 only a few minutes before the airliner crashed into the first tower. The hijackers had switched off the transponders so it wasn’t immediately clear where the plane was. In fact, when Langley scrambled its fighters they too were looking for AA11 not realizing it no longer existed.

“Also the pentagon has radar and anti-aircraft guns in place which would have shot the plane down before it hit. ”

I didn’t know the Pentagon has anti-aircraft guns in place. Are you sure? Even if they did, it doesn’t mean they could have shot AA77 down. Eugene Corder tried to fly his Cessna into the White House and he didn’t get shot down.

“You know you are on the wrong path when you find yourself in agreement with Angrysoba.”

I believe 2+2=4. Do you agree?

Re: cui bono -

A standard criminal investigation is usually limited to a few potential suspects or else is completely random event such a street mugging.

Geo-political events such as 911 are by their very definition so much larger in scope and contain so many potential variables that questions like cui bono are bound to be overly simplistic.

Damn……. I’m agreeing with angry on this one =P

“it suggests that there was an interval of forty minutes between the military being aware of a particular hijacking and the planes crashing”.

In the case of AA77 that is exactly the case. Yet Cheney waited until the plane was 10 miles away before ordering jets to be scrambled – and then from Langley AFB in Virginia rather than the nearby Andrews AFB in Washington, so were still over a hundred miles short of their target when AA77 hit the Pentagon.

To quote from the Institution of Structural Engineers July 2992 paper ‘Safety in tall buildings’:

“No _other_ case of a fire-protected steel-framed building collapsing totally in fire is believed to have occurred in spite of there having been several cases world wide of large uncontrolled fires in tall buildings, even where the fire has burnt out all combustible materials inside.”

There are only therefore 3 cases of buildings which have _totally_ collapsed as a result of fire damage. These 3 cases occurred on 11th September 2001: WTC1, WTC2 & WTC7.

?It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.? ?” Upton Sinclair

^ 2002 report.

Its also been expertly advised that a single plane impacting one area of the structure *did* cause the rapid collapses observed, yet to do something similar with explosives, would require a ton of semtex expertly distributed throughout the whole building.

How much semtex put in just one place in the building would cause a similar amount of damage to a jet impact?

Doesnt this question highlight the problem with the ‘controlled demo was too difficult, yet a plane crash did it’ ~idea ?

“The great fear of angrysoba and his sponsors is that their strategy of suppression by ridicule, powerful though it is, might fail. It is quite a vulnerable strategy, as it is only necessary for a few prominent and respectable people to say that it is absolutely obvious that the two towers were brought down by controlled demolition, and then others like Craig will soon join them. There are now over 1000 architects and structural engineers who say that the towers could not have fallen for the reasons given, and controlled demolition is not just the most plausible hypothesis for their failure, but the only one. But you are required to believe that this sober array of masters degrees and doctorates are just a lot ?foaming, swivel-eyed conspiraloons?, to borrow a phrase from angrysoba.”

Vronsky, are you being paid by Richard Gage

Just kidding, of course, but I do note that his website’s latest fund-raising is in aid of promoting the fact that there are now 1000 architects and engineers that believe in the Truth. Of course, as Chris from Glasgow has said these figures are a little cooked. For one thing Mr Gage had announced that this magic “Juggernaut” figure was due to have been arrived at much earlier and there had been a moving of the goalposts from degreed and licensed to simply degreed. Not to mention the fact that many of them are software engineers or in some other field that doesn’t really qualify them in the way that is suggested.

I did go and listen to Richard Gage twice when he came on his AE911Truth junket to Japan. I got the impression of watching a stage magician sawing a lady in half. I certainly would have been as impressed as most of the audience if I didn’t happen to know how the sleight-of-hand trick was performed.

I went there with an assistant professor of chemistry from Osaka University (which is one of the most prestigious universities in Japan). He doesn’t believe in 9/11 Truth and tells me that the physics lecturers and engineers there don’t either.

CheebaCow: “Damn……. I’m agreeing with angry on this one =P”

Hey! Don’t let it get you down. I appreciated our previous conversation.

“In the case of AA77 that is exactly the case. Yet Cheney waited until the plane was 10 miles away before ordering jets to be scrambled – and then from Langley AFB in Virginia rather than the nearby Andrews AFB in Washington, so were still over a hundred miles short of their target when AA77 hit the Pentagon.”

Was Andrews an “alert” site, MJ?

I only ask because the 9/11 Commission Report which you have read and David Ray Griffin has written a book about suggests that Andrews didn’t have fighters on standby unlike Langley and Otis.

Besides the hijacking of AA77 didn’t apparently get reported to the military early enough.

@MJ Actually not quite right. The WTC windows were hermetically sealed and could not be opened. When a building like this collapses air trapped within the structure has to go somewhere. In the case of the WTC towers it blew out from breaking windows as the floors above collapsed. It’s called compression. This accounts for the gusts of air mixed with dust and debris seen as the towers collapsed. Admittedly, to the untrained eye they would look like some type of explosion.

As for the thermite charges, that is plain daft. Anyone with the faintest knowledge of modern day explosives would know you don’t try to bring down a structure with thermite.

Good point though, but not realistic.

@Vronsky. As a Scotsman, I have an inborn belief in Nessie, but for the rest I keep an open mind.

Bert: “There are only therefore 3 cases of buildings which have _totally_ collapsed as a result of fire damage. These 3 cases occurred on 11th September 2001: WTC1, WTC2 & WTC7.”

You seem to forget the plane collisions in the case of WTC1 and WTC2.

You also seem to forget some other important sciency things:

Fire burns.

Fire can burn buildings.

Fire can burn buildings quicker if they have no fireproofing or their fireproofing is compromised.

Fire can burn buildings quicker if their fireproofing is compromised thanks to debris from a 110-story burning skyscraper falling on top of it and its sprinler system failing to work and allowed to burn for seven hours while the fire department is looking around in the rubble of WTC1 and WTC2 for their comrades.

By the way, just because a steel-framed skyscraper hadn’t fallen down due mainly to fire damage didn’t mean it could not.

Glen.

Finally getting around to responding to your response to my post on 9/11 on the murdered Dr Kelly thread.

I don’t believe the 5 points I listed are straw men, they are as much as I could remember of the arguments of people who are suspicious that 9/11 was an inside job. Can’t remember exactly where I came across the arguments, as I do a lot of internet browsing.

1/ That the twin towers collapsed neatly in their own footprints as if in a perfectly done controlled demolition;

Your answer: Limit the damage, given how much it would be already.

My answer: Why bother trying to limit the damage? If you are going to stage a terrorist event, false flag or otherwise the more damage the better. If chunks of the building fall in the street or on adjacent buildings that is great. In any case suppose that the hypothetical person who planted explosives on the same level that was coincidentally hit by an aeroplane did want to minimize the damage, then why not omit the explosives

and let the building remain standing after the fire caused by the coincidentally impacting air liner had burned out.

I am sure that everyone in the world has seen the video of each tower collapsing as have I many times. If you look at these videos you will notice that the collapse of each tower began at one of the floors affected by the aircraft impact and fire. One has to ask, how did the people planting the explosives know at what levels in the buildings the partly trained pilots were going to crash the planes.

The twin towers were constructed with most of the strength around the periphery so that there were no or very few internal columns to break up the floor space. My intuition and knowledge of physics tells me that as soon as the first vertical girder began to buckle it would transfer extra load to the girders nearest it which would then begin to buckle and this load transfer would very quickly run around the periphery of the building on that floor. Once a girder buckles that is it for its effectiveness in supporting anything above it. The whole N upper floors above the point of failure (I am not sure what the number N was and it was different for the North and South towers) would then fall at the rate of 1 earth gravity, ie. 980cm /sec/sec. After falling the height of one floor they would impact the floor below with a hammer blow. The impulsive force on the girders supporting the floor below would be many times the force that these normally support and would buckle them and so on.

2/ That building 7 which was not hit also collapsed;

My answer: It was close enough to be set on fire.

Your answer: Lots of steel-framed buildings have caught on fire. Yet this one came down in near freefall speed, in a perfect demolition. Never happened before or after that day. You could also have added the random damage from the twin towers, but building 3 was far more badly damaged but didn’t spontaneously collapse.

My response.The sprinklers in Building 7 were not working and so the fire burned on for much longer than it would have normally. In a normal fire sprinklers and fire fighters would have had an effect long before the fire would have had time to weaken the structure. I believe that building 7 also had most of its strength around the periphery so the same transfer of load from girder to adjacent girder around the periphery as with buildings 1 and 2 would have caused the neat implosion. Craig’s suggestion that maybe some of the building contractors had skimped on construction is plausible.

3/ That there was nothing left of the large aeroplane that hit the Pentagon and that the debris resembled that of a smaller plane.

My answer: When a big aeroplane hits a bigger building there is not going to be much left of the plane. Planes are rather fragile things really compared to buildings.

Your answer: You should always expect to see lots of wreckage (it would not vapourise), seats, luggage, and dead passengers. We saw a few randomly strewn little bits of metal. Same with the Pennsylvania crash. Strange too that the fragile plane – your term – punched such a hole through reinforced concrete like that. Was the nosecone solid iron, maybe?

My response. Most of the aircraft would have penetrated the Pentagon and the aircraft debris would be intermixed with the building debris. Most aircraft that hit the ground do not intersect buildings, therefore the aircraft does not get broken into small chunks, an aircraft hitting a building is a different matter. Even seats and passengers would have splattered by impact with the building. You are under the impression that the fragile aircraft structure could not penetrate the stronger building structure. You are under the wrong impression the relevant factors are momentum = mass X velocity and energy equal 0.5 Mass X Velocity Squared. A Boeing 757, a 100 tonne airliner impacting at 300kph has a lot of mass and a lot of energy. Even 100 tones of water hitting at 300 kilometeres per hour would have done the same amount of damage to the building.

In the case of the WTC the aircraft were Boeing 767s whose takeoff weights exceed 200 tonnes.

A lot of people point to the small size of the engine fan visible in the Pentagon debris and suggest that it came from a smaller remote controlled Global Hawk unmanned reconnaissance aircraft. I believe most airliners contain a small gas turbine in the tail to generate power while on the ground and the main engines are off. This small fan disc is in my opinion from that tail generator which may have been far enough back to for some of its parts to survive as recognizable.

4/ That it was physically impossible to fly an aeroplane into the Pentagon after clearing some obstacles that were in the way and were not damaged;

My answer: It might not be easy to do while respecting the control limits of the plane, but these guys did not need the plane afterwards and would not care if the overstrained it by suddenly initiating a steep dive after clearing the obstacle.

Your answer: “It might not be easy” – you don’t say! Ask any real pilot just how probable it is a guy barely competent to fly a 1-engined Cessna pulled that stunt off. Try this: http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon.html

I find it hard to take your answer seriously, in all fairness. I can just imagine the planning:

Ahmed: It’ll never take that kind of maneuver, even if we have a skilled enough pilot! In the name of the Prophet, please – just crash the thing into the centre of the Pentagon, that will do surely!

B. Laden: No. It must hit that precise point, and the plane might be all knackered the moment after it’s finished performing that tremendous stunt, but we don’t care about that! Ha ha ha ha ha!

My response. Experiment trumps theory. Some people say that it was impossible to hit the Pentagon with a Boeing 757 after clearing certain obstacles, that is what theory says but obviously something pretty big hit the Pentagon without hitting the earlier obstacles and if it was not the flight 777 a Boeing 757 then what the hell was it and where the inferno is flight 777 and its passengers?

5/ That burning jet fuel is not hot enough to melt steel and cause a steel building to collapse.

My answer: Untreated steel might not melt, but it would lose the necessary strength (paraphrasing quite a bit).

Your answer: Many thousands of tons of interconnected steel acts as an enormous heatsink. Most of the fuel burned off in the first few seconds (in the case of the second crash, outside of the building in a huge fireball). A dirty flame will not produce enough heat to appreciably weaken even a small amount of detached steel, let alone bring a vast structure up to the temperatures required to initiate a collapse.

Planes are not fueled to capacity when taking domestic flights, that would be a huge weight burden. They take not much more than they need, plus a reasonable safety margin.

My response.

Most of the fuel would not have burned off in the first few seconds. Combustion requires two things, fuel and oxygen and the initial flare was limited by the amount of oxygen available. If all the fuel did burn in one or two seconds that would have been a colossal fire ball equivalent to a fuel air bomb or 30 or 40 tonnes of TNT. Only a small amount that could vaporise burned in the first few seconds, the rest dripped through the broken floors of the tower pooling on those floors that did not break and acting as kindling to ignite everything combustible that was already in the building.

the maximum fuel capacity of a Boeing 767 200 is 90,000 litres. Lets assume it was only carrying 12,000 litres this would still be ten tonnes of fuel.

As for the heat sink idea it would not be as effective as you think. Girders are long and thin and heat does not propagate that well along long thin things. The fire in any case went on long enough to overload any theoretical heat sink.

My conclusion “In my view before 9/11, anyone designing a building capable of withstanding the impact of a jet liner would have been crazy, I think the expectation that the WTC towers should have remained standing is crazy.”

Your answer: As it happens, the designers allowed for _multiple crashes_ of the heaviest airliners at that time. Don’t forget the Empire State Building was hit by a B-25 bomber and is still standing.

Like it or not, the case it not cut and dried, and anyone who calls doubters/ sceptics “crazy” for not finding the Official Story obvious has clearly not looked into it that hard.

My response.

Air liners are getting bigger and faster. If you design a building to resist the impact of the biggest airliner available today there is no guarantee that it will resist the impact of the biggest aircraft of ten years in the future. Maximum takeoff weight of a Boeing 707 is about 100 tonnes that of a Boeing 767-200 is more than 200 tonnes, that of a 747-400 is over 400 tonnes and that of an Airbus A380 is 560 tonnes.

Recently i saw the film Avatar, well worth the money in my view… however i’ve noticed in USA produced films that the weaponry depicted even in stories way off into the future (Avatar is based in 2154) that the hand weapons used are still based on the bullets and guns system available in the 20th century. It may be that modern day Americans like this image (to which they can relate) and so they continue to use them when you would have expected in another 140 years or so that much more sophisticated weapons systems would have been invented.

My point in all this in relation to the discussion on collapsing buildings is we are assuming that only conventional technology was used to demolish them whereas for all we know the Yanks may have devloped much more impressive demolition systems than is generally known about.

There are many black projects researching all sorts of advanced applications of physics and being good blood thirsty americans, many of them will be linked to warfare, have no doubt of that !

“The inquiries Act” – 2005

Opening criticized by the Law Society of England and Amnesty International.

In America it has been described by a Senator as ‘the public inquiries cover-up bill!’

Perhaps this needs to be explored before 9/11 and 7/7? (Not meant to be a ludicrous diversion)

MJ

I haven’t ever heard of a 767 aeroplane crashing into a skyscraper. I know that a bomber crashed into the empire states building in the war but it was a 10 ton aircraft that had significantly reduced it’s speed to avoid two other skyscrapers. It caused a lot of damage but didn’t collapse the building.

However, a 767 aeroplane is not 10 ton or even the 50 to 80 tonnes that i estimated before, it is 200 tonnes. If you were to add 200 tonnes to the top of a skyscraper it would most likely not be able to take such a heavy additional load.

“But that only accounts for the area of the impact, not the whole building”

What if the area of impact extends far into the building? The instability of a large area of structure being taken out by the force of a high speed impact (it didn’t swerve to miss another building) it would be entirely possible for the building to collapse.

9/11 was unique as nobody had ever tried intentionally to fly a huge plane into a building before. So you are not going to get much evidence of such instances.

Also the reason no skyscraper has collapsed due to fire ever is that fire fighters have always put out the fire before the structural integrity has been destroyed enough to collapse the building but in theory it is perfectly plausable for a fire to destroy a building. Steel and concrete are not impervious to fire that is why they are fire protected and even that can only do so for a certain length of time.

If I can’t give you example because there aren’t any that is not a bad thing. All I can tell you is what is technically possible based my knowledge of design and structure. From that I can see that it is possible for a plane that size and weight to take out one of the twin towers.

Glen.

In my previous post I forgot to include the weight of the B25 that hit the Empire state building.

The weight of a B25 Mitchell Bomber is about 15 tonnes and it is a lot slower than a jet liner.

“is this a slippery slope…”"Probably.”

Tim G.’s right too, re. deserving applause for trying to find a good way through, I’m sorry if I’m sounding unduly negative, the (comparative) peace is indeed very welcome. I think my main point is to be wary of solutions that involve you having to shoulder the load of other peoples’ pisstaking. On the other hand, the only real long-term solution (people learn to spot troublemaking and deal with it) isn’t quick enough … I don’t have any solutions to sell, i just hate to see it so defenceless. If I can help, let me know.

Oh, and Tim G – ‘Irate Noodle’ is nice. I’m fluent in Shite, myself.

Silly me, I forgot Roswell.

“Recently i saw the film Avatar…”

Have you been listening to Mahathir?

Craig, this post is an excercise in futility. Give your readership a place to discuss something you feel isn’t relevant in other threads? (with the threat of post deletion if this topic is brought up anywhere else?)

Who needs to discuss 9/11? – the time for discussion is over. You either believe 19 Arab hijackers did it, or you believe it was a covert operation by various ‘security’ services working together…

Believe what you will, I’ve made up my mind. I can’t be arsed trying to convince others to see the world through my eyes. In fact, I wouldn’t blame them for not trying. It’s a fucked up. Everything Craig writes confirms this (present post excepted)

Frazier,

“Yes there were puffs of air exiting sides of the building as it collapses. This is air compression caused by the buildings internal collapse and air bieng forced out of it through lift shafts,stairwells etcIf explosives were used, any demolition expert would have spotted it. Mind you, I keep an open mind on the subject.”

Angrysoba and I have had some extended exchanges on this subject in the past, but haven’t managed to agree yet. I will say this: if anyone can convince me that the “squib” explosions at the WTC were actually caused by air compression, I would happily drop all my other objections to the idea that 9/11 was an outside job and go back to attacking Monsanto.

The reasons why I haven’t been able to accept the air compression hypothesis at WTC 1 & 2 is that squibs are observed emerging 10 or 15 stories below the collapse front. Air is notorious for eqilibriating (quickly reaching the same pressure throughout a single enclosed space), and to increase its pressure enough to break windows would require a lot of compression. (You can’t usually smash a window just by slamming the door of a room.) The WTC buildings were essentially partition free, with each floor forming a single air space and the elevator shafts, stairwells and air conditioning shafts providing conduits for air to move downwards from the collapse zone, but with not nearly enough cross-sectional area to allow enough air in to raise the pressure high enough and fast enough to smash windows 10 or 15 floors below the collapse front.

Further, as the building was collapsing, the walls and windows of the collapsing section were being destroyed, which provided a much larger cross-sectional area for the air of a collaping floor to escape straight out into the sky above Manhatten. Also, the outside pressure would have been lower than the pressure in the building below the collapse front, so I don’t see how sufficient air compression to smash windows 15 stories down could have occured. Imagine compressing a syringe that doesn’t have a good seal around the plunger: the air will not compresss very much if it has plenty of opportunity to leak out of the sides. You can try this with a syringe full of water.To get it to come out of the needle, you need to have the rest of the syringe well sealed.

And even if the pressure inside the lower part of the building could be made to rise ?” what’s the word? ?” “explosively”, it would be likely to blow out a whole floor of windows simultaneously – not just blowing one window and releasing a jet of gas and debris that has so much kinetic energy that it would, if it was the result of air compression on a given floor, have blown out most or all of the windows.

Conversely, if we assume a modest squib placed close to a window, there is no problem visualizing why only one window popped. That’s a much more plausible model, all other things being equal.

And finally, I saw a video a couple of weeks ago that seems to show a “squib” going off at one of the corners of the North Tower, where there was no window.

That’s why I’m unable to accept the no-explosives theory at present. I am quite willing to be convinced, and as you and your colleagues know a thing or two about bangs and blasts, you might be just the people to work out this puzzle so the rest of us can understand it.

But Angrysoba’s method, which consisted of calling Richard Gage a Chacerian fraud, David Ray Griffin a Cleudo player, and Steve Jones a Mormon, followed by some of his favorite YouTube videos, didn’t do it for me. Wickedly entertaining though it was, It didn’t address the central issue for me of how could a single window, 15 floors below the blast wave, pop out with explosive force, while all the other windows on the same floor and the floors above and below it remained unaffected? Could a large, general, non-specific air blast do that? I think it more likely that a small, powerful, localized explosion was the cause.

Soba,

“I believe 2+2=4. Do you agree?”

That depends on how you define “believe”, “agree”, “+” and “=”.

It also depends in what base you are adding up in and what values you are attributing to the numerals in question.

So there’s plenty of scope for differences of opinion.

Chris,

I mentioned that the buildings were designed to withstand the weight of a 707 (similar take-off weight to a 767) by a ‘net’ concept and loading force calculations. As a design engineer (in a different field) one always (with good design) finds a failure constant and then applies an over-load factor or safety margin. Now whether the design included a full fuel load is under debate. I have a full set of blueprints for the one of the towers and the loading constants and I will report back on the strength of the building here if desired. I am sure this exercise has been done before by professionals and is available somewhere on the www?

to Angrysoba, just seems odd to me that normal procedures to deal with planes in USA civil airspace that go off course or fail to respond to radio calls weren’t followed in the same way as they were before the 11th Sept 2001 and were allowed to go where they wanted without interception. Just seems odd… but so does three buildings falling down on the same day in what appears to be a controlled demolition. Just odd that’s all…

- and of course to the lay-man the buildings stood for about an hour before falling – so good design saved many lives.

I am not convinced by the temperature curves involved that the steel melted or even sagged because the fuel burned off very quickly and the black smoke gave some indication of temperature.

“to Angrysoba, just seems odd to me that normal procedures to deal with planes in USA civil airspace that go off course or fail to respond to radio calls weren’t followed in the same way as they were before the 11th Sept 2001 and were allowed to go where they wanted without interception.”

Well, it needs to be established what normal procedures were for dealing with four hijackings at about the same time in which the hijackers switched off the transponders and flew the planes themselves.

I don’t believe there were normal procedures for that situation.

“but so does three buildings falling down on the same day in what appears to be a controlled demolition”

Except they don’t appear to be controlled demolitions because we didn’t hear any detonations of explosives. Or see any flashes of explosives. Nor has any controlled demolition I have ever seen look like the Twin Towers collapses.

“That depends on how you define “believe”, “agree”, “+” and “=”.

It also depends in what base you are adding up in and what values you are attributing to the numerals in question.

So there’s plenty of scope for differences of opinion.”

I agree with you.

“I know that a bomber crashed into the empire states building in the war but it was a 10 ton aircraft that had significantly reduced it’s speed to avoid two other skyscrapers”

There again, the Empire State is a small and weaker building than WTC.

“9/11 was unique as nobody had ever tried intentionally to fly a huge plane into a building before”

Does it matter whether the impact is intentional or accidental?

“Also the reason no skyscraper has collapsed due to fire ever is that fire fighters have always put out the fire before the structural integrity has been destroyed”

Not true. Sometimes they are left to burn themselves out because they are too dangerous. A good example is the tower block in Madrid in 2005, which burned uncontrollably for 24 hours. The whole building was like a huge torch. But it didn’t collapse. Only the top 6 storeys gave way.

“Steel and concrete are not impervious to fire that is why they are fire protected and even that can only do so for a certain length of time”.

The Madrid tower burned for over 24 hours without collapsing. WTC2 collapsed less than one hour after impact (WTC1 about 90 mins). Any views on that?

“If I can’t give you example because there aren’t any that is not a bad thing”

But it would help your case enormously.

To Mr Angry, you must be making a mint today from your sponsors, is Criag getting a kick-back from you for putting this post up?

“To Mr Angry, you must be making a mint today from your sponsors, is Criag getting a kick-back from you for putting this post up?”

If only. Who’s paying you by the way?

“The Madrid tower burned for over 24 hours without collapsing. WTC2 collapsed less than one hour after impact (WTC1 about 90 mins). Any views on that?”

Yes, was the Madrid Tower fireproofed and did a 767 fly into it at 500 mph?

Thankyou.

The Inquiries Act 2005

More on this insidiuos legislation, passed into law 1 month before the 7/7 attrocities.

More here:

http://preview.tinyurl.com/yk2fmhv

The same legislation will be used to undertake the inquests (NONE OF WHICH HAVE BEEN CONCLUDED YET) into the 56 deaths of July 7th 2005.

The Inquiries Act 2005 will allow secret inquests under goverment selected (privvy councillor) high court judges & inquests without family members or/or juries present.

MJ,

I have shown this video of a steel-framed building collapsing due to fire before. The fire doesn’t look like its blazing too much but the burning section does collapse and crush down to the floor as far as I can make out.

It also comes with “squibs”!

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ff1_1210707903

No one was harmed in the making of this video.

Carlyle,

“My response. Most of the aircraft would have penetrated the Pentagon and the aircraft debris would be intermixed with the building debris. Most aircraft that hit the ground do not intersect buildings, therefore the aircraft does not get broken into small chunks, an aircraft hitting a building is a different matter.”

Then why have we not recovered most of the structure of United Airlines Flight 93 that allegedly crashed on soft ground in Shanksville, Penn on 9/11? We got plenty of bits of Pan Am fight 103, which blew up over Lockerbiem Scotland and came down over a wide area. We got almost the entire skeleton of TWA flight 800, which went into the Atlantic and had to be picked up by divers in small pieces dotting several square miles of sea bed. Where’s the bits and pieces of UA Flight 93? Enquiring minds want to know. Defenders of the official theory, put up or shut up.

No, really. If you don’t produce at least this much of the Flight 93 airplane….

http://msnbcmedia1.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/060708/060708_TWA10th_hmed_7p.hlarge.jpg

… and you still want to go on believing the official story, then I’m afraid it’s T-shirt time. We’re going to have to start calling you what you are, 9-11 Reality Deniers.

@Tim An interesting point and I think I have seen the same ‘squib’ video myself. It is my opinion that as the floors collapsed, the entire building was twisting and shuddering. What you may have thought was an explosion was probably the reinforced concrete fracturing under tremendous force and blowing out at the structural points under force. I looked again at the video and no way is that some type of controlled detonation. You can see the same type of thing happen when large buildings are demolished, such as that casino they blew up in Vegas some years ago. It is a pretty common phenomenon if you collapse a structure floor by floor. With all the debris flying around as well it is easy to misinterpretate. Again I do though keep an open mind.

The squib theory is great, but the ‘explosion’ is far too small to do any significant damage to the structure. To make a building collapse like the WTC did with explosives, you would have to use enough, that the effects would be clearly visible to anyone watching,eg windows blown out etc. If I were to do it, I would place charges at the structural strongpoints. For a building that size I would place 2kg at each point, and believe me that makes a significant blast and you would see it a mile away.

“Yes, was the Madrid Tower fireproofed and did a 767 fly into it at 500 mph?”

According to your beloved NIST report it was the heat of the fires that did it. Kerosene heating huge steel sections so they give way, within an hour. I was hoping you were going to tell me about the conductive qualities of steel.

Cui Bono.

“Cui Bono” does not always tell you who to suspect for a particular crime because it is not who actually benefits but who thinks perhaps wrongly that they might benefit or who has an agenda that they think perhaps incorrectly will be advanced by the action.

When events like 9/11 occur we try to get from the visible facts to the underlying facts. For any set of visible facts one can postulate multiple sets of underlying facts that could be the cause.

In the case of the 9/11 airlinerings they advanced the agendas of both Osama Bin Laden and George W Bush and the neo-cons. There are several possible sets of underlying facts which could explain it:-

1/ People working for Osama Bin Laden did it on their own with no collusion by the US government.

2/ People working for Osama Bin Laden did it but elements of the US government had spies in Bin Laden’s organization and knew about it but did nothing to stop it;

3/ A US mole in Osama’s organization suggested the idea to Osama.

4/ George W Bush and Osama Bin Laden got together and agreed that they both wanted war in the middle east and George suggested to Osama that if he could arrange for his guys to hijack airliners and fly them into some tall buildings that would give George a pretext to start their war.

In my opinion the probabilities of scenario 4 is low but it is still above zero. The first three scenarios have higher probabilities.

The Madrid Tower was of reinforced concrete construction – the WTC towers were primarily steel construction. WTC 1&2 were designed for the forces resulting from aircraft collision. The WTC 1&2 towers were designed to withstand as a whole the forces caused by the horizontal impact of a large commercial aircraft of the time, a Boeing 707.

NIST struggled to

Yes, I think Richard Gage is a Chaucerian fraud. He’s very personable and all that. Ironically he’s also good at fleecing those who like to call others “sheeple” but I’m sure those thousands of dollars raised on FOIAs won’t be wasted.

David Ray Griffin isn’t just any old Cluedo player but one who declares at the beginnig of the game that it was Colonel Mustard, in the basement with the thermite and no matter what transpires throughout the game he will remain convinced and can’t be swayed whatever evidence to the contrary exists. Instead he’ll muse on the significance of the coffee stains left from a previous game or the fact that Mrs White bears a striking resemblance to Dick Cheney.

As for Steven Jones, I don’t believe his Mormonism is an issue. After all the good folks at the structural engineering department and the physics department of Brigham Young University find Jones to be just a little too attracted to outrageous ideas which could just make or break him. I feel a bit sorry for him and think he’s not a mean-spirited person.

Tim Groves.

Well I accept the designation of 9/11 reality denier in your estimation.

However I make up for it by believing that the murders of JFK, RFK and Martin Luther King were not done by lone nutters but by powerful interests in the US possibly including agencies of the US government. I also believe global warming really is happening and that there really is a UFO phenomenon though it is too early to jump to the conclusion that people are seeing spaceships from other planets. Such an explanation may not be weird enough.

To begin with the FBI have admitted that they have no evidence linking Osama to 9/11.

In 1989 a report stated that due to galvanic corrosion WTC 1+2 needed to be demolished. Also the towers were full of asbestos. The cost of demolition was a prohibitive $5 billion. After fellow tribal members went to work and forced the NYPA to privatize the WTC complex, Larry Silverstein picked up the lease for $146 million annual rent. He put down a $15 million deposit, slapped terrorist insurance on the complex and picked up $3.5 billion in insurance.

Flight 11. Mohammed Atta catches a connecting flight from Portland to Boston where he later hijacks Flight 11. Must be the first hijacker in history to catch a connecting flight to the one he intends to hijack..

Flight 175. A news reporter, its on youtube, describes 175 has having no windows and looking like a cargo plane.

Flight 93. On board 93 was an American football team, they be big bad guys. And yet they are cowed into submission by a couple of five foot nothing Arabs wielding box cutters. Sure. At the crash site in Shanksville when asked by reporters where all the plane wreckage was, the local Sheriff replied that the plane crashed vertically into the ground and was buried below the 15 by 25 foot crater. OK. Apparently 95% of the wreckage was recovered and is in storage. But nobody is saying where.

Flight 77. The data stream from the flight data recorder (FDR) for American Airlines flight 77 shows that the cockpit door never opened during the entire 90 minute flight. The data was provided by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), which has refused to comment.

Also there are witnesses to an explosion in the Pentagon. While 77 is said to have crashed into the Pentagon at 0836, many clocks in the building stopped at 0832. The department that suffered the most damage was the Army Accounting dept. It was this department which was investigating the disappearance of $2.5 trillion from Pentagon accounts when the comptroller of accounts was a tribal member by the name of Rabbi Dov Zakheim. Thereafter the investigation ceased.

And where is the footage from the 86 cameras around the Pentagon.

WTC7. When the clips of the collapse of WTC7 started to appear on youtube I contacted two of the few men in the UK licensed to use explosives in demolition. After they viewed these clips they confided to me that “they would have been proud of that one”.

The company in charge of security at Newark and Boston on 9/11 was the same company that ran security at Orly where shoebomber Richard Reid boarded his flight. It is the same company that runs security at Schipol where the infamous croch bomber boarded his flight. And it is the same company that ran security for London transport on 7/7. The companies name is ICTS, and it is Israeli.

If it looks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck and if it walks like a duck, it aint no chicken.

Mr. Murray poses the question as to how thousands would remain silent if there was a conspiracy other than that involving dreaded Muslim terrorists. The current hoax regarding man made climate change is a good example of how thousands are involved in propagating a lie.

Millions of Germans were killed or left to die after WW2. How many people have heard of that.

For over 60 years the Palestinian has been portrayed as the terrorist and the Jew the victim. How many thousands have been in involved in prolonging that lie.

When a foreign government controls many of the world’s governments, the UK has been occupied territory since Oliver Cromwell became the paid servant of a Dutch Jewish banker by the name of Menassah ben Israel, and controls most of the world’s media then the promoting of a lie is really no problem. BTW, Churchill’s mother was Jewish.

I’m surprised that Mr. Murray has to even ask the question.

“According to your beloved NIST report it was the heat of the fires that did it. Kerosene heating huge steel sections so they give way, within an hour. I was hoping you were going to tell me about the conductive qualities of steel.”

I’m not in love with NIST, but I do believe they mentioned that the fireproofing was knocked off by the impacts, which themselves weakened the structure.

I showed you video before of the steel apparently buckling and giving way. In the off-chance you watch it this time I’ll repost it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rbfLLp7rBI&feature=player_embedded

Neil Turner, you have just produced a bone fide example of what I believe is known as a Gish Gallop.

Tim Groves.

When the cause of an air crash is unknown, great care is taken to recover as much as possible of the debris to determine the cause. In the case of the four aircraft hijacked on 9/11 the cause is already known, the people at the controls flew them into buildings. With the one that crashed in Pennsylvania the only question is whether the hijacker deliberately crashed it before the rebellious passengers and crew broke into the cockpit or whether he was simply distracted or whether the passengers managed to overpower the last high-jacker in the cockpit and the crash occurred as or after they were doing that?

Angry,

How does this failed demolition in Hackney fit in with your theories?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsePUn5-88c&feature=fvsr

And this one in Cankiri?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7z-FQUrfhc&NR=1

Or this epic fail in Goodnessknows where?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fiNrzmbdC1Q&feature=related

What do these three all have in common that sets them apart from the WTC collapses? (Apart from the fact that we know these were demilitions and failed ones at that.)

(Sorry, I don’t know how to put in links on this site.)

“The Madrid tower was a completely different structure and smaller scale to the twin towers”

Therefore weaker.

“It was mainly concrete”

Concrete and steel of course.

“There was steel at the top and guess what happened it, it collapsed!”

After 24 hours, not 1 hour.

“the circumstances to 9/11 were completely unique”

So unique that the laws of physics were suspended for a day? Please tell us about the conductive qualities of steel and how they were suspended for one day only.

…normally when an aircraft hits the ground there is considerable damage in the immediate area, any pictures of such crashes will show that.

In the Pennsylvania incident the wreckage was spread over a trail lasting many miles, more consistent with damage caused by a bomb or missile hit. It would appear the aircraft broke up in flight and not when it hit the ground.

The “cospiracy theorists” argue this plane was taken out because the passengers had taken control of it and captured the hijackers. Of course the plan was that they would be killed outright and not suffer any future interrogation or trial where the truth might emerge. Its called burying the evidence…

Carlyle,

“When the cause of an air crash is unknown, great care is taken to recover as much as possible of the debris to determine the cause. In the case of the four aircraft hijacked on 9/11 the cause is already known, the people at the controls flew them into buildings.”

That is circular reasoning. We do not know the cause of the crash of Flight 93. But even if we did, the authorities would still be legally obliged to do a thorough investigation as it was allegedly both an air crash and a mass murder incident. Are you seriously suggesting it was not necessary to collect the remains of Flight 93 and try to piece together what happened to it?

“In the Pennsylvania incident the wreckage was spread over a trail lasting many miles, more consistent with damage caused by a bomb or missile hit. It would appear the aircraft broke up in flight and not when it hit the ground.”

You need to upgrade your software to Troof 3.0. You’re still on stuff that Popular Mechanics debunked.

Scattered debris was found in places which were a few miles BY ROAD but just over the brow of a hill as the debris flies.

“The “cospiracy theorists” argue this plane was taken out because the passengers had taken control of it and captured the hijackers. Of course the plan was that they would be killed outright and not suffer any future interrogation or trial where the truth might emerge. Its called burying the evidence…”

That sounds silly and I’m sure there are number of Truthers shaking their heads and saying, “Don’t look at me guv!” right now.

You didn’t tell me who was paying you by the way.

If anyone wants to find out the truth about anything, that may conflict with their core beliefs, then they have to make the effort to find it for themselves.

There is very strong in-built resistance to this, because the very foundations of your self image of the world is liable to be swept away.

People naturally have trust in their government, in a relationship somewhat similar to a child and a parent.

Its like the wife of a loving husband and father, denying that he could possibly be the local serial killer. He keeps coming home late at night covered in blood, and says to his wife, he’s been helping his mate down the local butchers shop. His wife knows, that the local butchers shop closed down years ago, so she assumes he must have been working in Sainsbury’s. She doesn’t interrogate him, because the truth is too painful. The Son cowers in his bedroom, worrying who will be his next victim.

There is overwhelming evidence that all 3 towers were brought down by controlled demolition. You simply need to examine it objectively, and try and remember the very basic physics you should have stayed awake for at school.

Try a Google or Youtube search of something like 9/11 Evidence of Controlled Demolition Physics.

You will get an extremely large number of results including some junk science and disinfo. Some of the junk is extremely professionally done and convincing, but it still doesn’t stand up to the basic laws of physics. If you don’t have any understanding of those, then you are at a big disadvantage.

You could however look at the detailed photographic evidence, that actually shows people moving and alive, at the very point were the aircraft hit and exploded. You will see some black smoke and some flames, but what you are looking at is an obviously cold fire, that could not possibly be hot enough to melt or even deform steel, because people are alive and looking out threw the hole hoping to be rescued.

But the chances are, like the Roman Catholic Priest who’s very existence both now and after death is dependent on his faith, he will not go anywhere near deep historical research, that will blatantly challenge his faith with facts. The facts are too dangerous and best ignored.

What is indisputable, unless you believe in aliens, 9/11 was done by humans, and it was a very evil act. Whilst Muslims got the blame for it, what exactly would be their motivation? They must have known that the response to such an attack would be the overwhelming destruction of their own culture.

Now try and think objectively which culture has actually exhibited the most tremendous evil. Is it Muslims, or is it Us?

And then think about the actual technical capabilities of the different cultures required to pull off such an event.

If you want links, find them yourself. If you are comfortable believing the official story, then stay with it.

Discovering the truth about 9/11 is like losing your religion. However I have never heard of anyone who once having convinced themselves of all the clear facts, has gone back to believing the official story.

Tony

Hi All,

I want to ask some questions; not “Just Asking Questions” questions; real questions, because my memory fades or could be imperfect.

I watched live TV coverage for a while on 911, probably BBC. I remember the coverage cutting away at one point, to pictures of children. Where, I ask myself. Gaza? Palestine? The voice-over told me that I was seeing children celebrating the disaster. I couldn’t say either way. I saw a few children, quite young, I think, not a dense crowd. I remember one ran left a bit, and then sort of retreated, looking back and smiling at the camera as if looking for approval. The child seemed too young to understand about such an incident.

The pictures alternated with pictures of what the kids were allegedly watching, which was an enormous television. Not the sort of thing you have in your home, but one of the huge things they put above the stage at rock concerts so that people at the back can see what’s happening on stage. This enormous screen was set up outdoors, and was showing TV coverage from New York.

I remember thinking this was very odd. I’d seen pictures of Gaza before, the poverty and the destroyed buildings, and I couldn’t imagine what one of these huge screens would be doing there; incongruous. And I remember wondering how anyone had noticed these children, and why they’d assumed that the children were celebrating. They just looked like kids mucking about in the street to me, there was only the voice-over to tell me that they were celebrating the destruction. It all seemed a bit artificial, a set-up.

I’ve looked around the Web to see if I could find a clip of this, but the only clips I’ve found on the subject show a completely different scene which has no resemblence to my memory.

So my questions are:

does anyone else remember this, and if so, what are your memories?

and

Can you link to a clip to refresh my memory?

I’m not going to sit watching this thread, but I’ll be back later to check for answers. All help appreciated.

“When the cause of an air crash is unknown, great care is taken to recover as much as possible of the debris to determine the cause. In the case of the four aircraft hijacked on 9/11 the cause is already known”

Oh dear, this what is known as teleological reasoning ie presupposing what you’re supposed to be trying to demonstrate.

The official account of 911 wasn’t announced until 48 hours after the event. Of course you retain the wreckage in all instances, whatever theories you might have. The wreckage is kept because it is a valuable source of clues. The wreckage of the Lockerbie plane was kept and sifted through meticulously even though it quickly became obvious it was a terrorist bomb that caused the crash.

Frazer,

I appreciate your informed response about the explosives, and I will try to reciprocate by trying to re-open my mind, which I admit has been closed on this subject for sometime.

Carlyle,

The 9/11 reality denier label was made tongue in cheek. I often think it was a wise spokespan for empire who said “we make our own reality.”

I’m with you as an JFK, RFK and Martin Luther King lone nutter denialist. And by the way, Angrysoba told me he believes Oswald did JFK on his own.

I belive climate is always changing due to factors far more significant than the CO2 concentration and that the IPCC AGW/climate change gravy train (driven by a former train driving agenda benda named Rajenda, by the way) is the scam of the century. However, we’re going to have to do something about our fossil fuel habit regardless.

As for UFOs, I’m with Carl Sagan all the way. But if aliens do come to visit, I hope they aren’t going to turn out to be lizards with David Icke haircuts.

“Six miles to the southeast, at New Baltimore, a town of 630 people, Andy Stoe was in his yard Wednesday night when he found two scraps of paper — one an endorsed check for $698, made out to a San Jose, Calif. man who was not on the passenger list. The other paper was a financial statement, singed around the edges.

In Indian Lake, another crumpled financial statement lay amid thumbnail-size pieces of fabric and charred plastic, scattered across backyards.

On the Lowery farm, it rained financial statements — enough that Lowery and wife Gerry had a handful in the three one-gallon plastic bags of debris they turned over to investigators.

“They said they found unopened mail,” Gerry Lowery said of the mix of state police and FBI searchers who walked almost shoulder-to-shoulder through their fields all day Wednesday and yesterday. “They found a picture, a snapshot of a baby. That just caused goose bumps for me.”"

In other words much of the debris that was found was paper which was blown by the wind.

http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010914scene0914p2.asp

They did find the data recorder and body parts so unless you want to claim they were faked then I am not sure what is left of your United 93 conspiracy.

Further to my description above, I also seem to remember that not all of the children seemed to be interested in the big screen, and the ones that were didn’t give it their full attention; mostly, they just seemed to be involved in their street game, which was kicking a ball or some stones about, I think.

MJ

Why have you assumed that the Madrid towers were weaker because they were smaller? It wasn’t, in fact it was a far stronger design as it had a central solid concrete core which was far more robust than the steel frame of the twin towers.

Also it was not alight for 24 hours it was alight for 18 hours and in fact by 14hours the fire was under control. It wasn’t left to burn like you said.

The steel didn’t collapse after 24hrs it collapsed after 5 hours.

Again this is a completely different fire as it was started at a single point of a floor and then it spread.

9/11 the fire started throughout a full floor not a single point.

I have to ask the question, are you a structural engineer? The reason why I ask is that you seem to be making a lot of assumption which would lead me to believe that you are not.

“Oh dear, this what is known as teleological reasoning ie presupposing what you’re supposed to be trying to demonstrate.”

Actually, MJ, I think it is question-begging. Teleological thinking is mostly about the purpose of something. “What is the reason for this?”, “Why does this exist?” etc…

Re: Tim Groves:

There are 10 sorts of people:

those who know binary, and those who don’t.

Clark,

I think this is the clip you remember

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vOJCQr1Now

From wiki

“Annette Kr?ger Spitta of the ARD’s (German public broadcasting) TV magazine Panorama states that footage not aired shows that the street surrounding the celebration in Jerusalem is quiet. Furthermore, she states that a man in a white T-shirt incited the children and gathered people together for the shot. The Panorama report, dated September 20, 2001, quotes Communications Professor Martin L?ffelholz explaining that in the images one sees jubilant Palestinian children and several adults but there is no indication that their pleasure is related to the attack. The woman seen cheering (Nawal Abdel Fatah) stated afterwards that she was offered cake if she celebrated on camera, and was frightened when she saw the pictures on television afterward.”

Tony

Teleological thinking is mostly about the purpose of something. “What is the reason for this?”, “Why does this exist?”

It can be, for instance in some of the arguments people make against evolutionary theory. But it has a deeper philosophical meaning than that and I am using it correctly in this case. Indeed, “what is the reason for this?” is the sense in which I’m using here, really.

“The steel didn’t collapse after 24hrs it collapsed after 5 hours”

5 hours is pretty good. Shame WTC2 didn’t hold out for that long. 58 minutes!

“9/11 the fire started throughout a full floor not a single point”

But did not spread. A rather small-scale local fire really.

“are you a structural engineer?”

No, but I’ve picked up some of the basic principles along the way out of interest in the subject.

I know about the conductive qualities of steel for instance. Do you?

A reply to Chris in Glasgow who said;

“Neil Turner, you have just produced a bone fide example of what I believe is known as a Gish Gallop”.

Others would call it truth.

Unfortunately some people are educated beyond their intelligence.

Vronsky

This is what my margins can’t contain:

Before 911 the Muslim world in general(or at least the ones Craig’s friends in quilam call Islamists) called the Taliban American agents.

They also used this term to a lesser degree for Uthama bin Ladin.

We believed that the Taliban were created by America to stabilise the country for the pipeline.

The Taliban received all their funding and fuel from Pakistan, as well as their arms. And it wasn’t much of a secret that all this was being paid for by America.

During that time Period the Taliban were allowed to collect funds and distribute their newspaper openly in the UK. They were able to travel everywhere to give talks in the UK. We remember senior members of the Taliban going to America to have meetings with senior members of the American administration.

Because we knew how infiltrated both the Taliban and Uthama bin Ladin’s entourage were by the CIA, we just called them the CIA.

That was our name for them, and we called their supporters, the supporters of the CIA.

We laughed at them and treated them as a joke.

So to say Bin Ladin did it, would not contradict saying it was an inside Job done by rouge agents. Because we still remember him getting funding and arms from the CIA.

Remembering how infiltrated his Entourage were, remembering that he was completely dependent of the Taliban and the Taliban were completely dependent on Pakistan and the CIA for founding and supplies. Remembering how infiltrated the Arab Mujahideen, the Taliban and Pakistans ISI were by the CIA, really does mean I can’t see a contradiction between saying it was an inside Job and a outside Job.

But my personal opinion, which I do not believe is held by anyone else. Is that it wasn’t done by Bin Ladin, because he was under the house arrest by the Taliban at the time. They had removed all of his phones so he had no means of communication to direct such a thing. Even if he did have such a means, he was already on watch list because he had admitted attack America in Somalia.

The Taliban has nothing to gain by such an attack, and Uthama had given what is known as a Bayat to Mulla Umar. What this means was Uthama bin Ladin was under a religious obligation to obey Mullah Umar.

What I believe is an Anti-Taliban group could have been responsible. This may have happened with or without the collusion of agent provocateurs. I have reasons for this belief, but my margins can’t contain them.

My forum my contain them though?

I have been fascinated for some years by a short piece of film in Loose Change 2nd Edition. The clip, starting at 34:35, shows the towers after the first plane has hit.

The cameraman, who appears to be using a hand-held camera, keeps the camera focused on the towers, even when there is the roar overhead of the second plane coming in, and a voice is heard, saying what sounds to me like “Ah, oui”.

Wouldn’t he duck or run, or at least look up, when he is looking at a building that had just had a plane crash into it and he hears another plane roaring in? And is that voice saying “Ah, oui”?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Yx9NRX37SM

Call me a twoofer, but it seems to me like two French Canadians have been commissioned to capture the moment.

I wasn’t going to mention anything about 9/11 again.

Here’s a building which burned pretty well, though:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/29099142

That’s the Beijing’s Mandarin Oriental. And don’t tell me it stayed intact because some water got sprayed on it, _please_.

hawley_jr wrote: “Call me a twoofer, but it seems to me like two French Canadians have been commissioned to capture the moment.”

Are you talking about the Naudet brothers? They’re actually French originally. (Why do you think they’re Canadians?) They were doing a documentary on the NYPD. What’s so odd about that? Happens all the time.

hawley_jr, I just looked briefly, and it’s not the Naudet brothers, so I was wrong.

Nonetheless, that’s some very silly evidence for an inside job!

If no videotape existed, then it’s a conspiracy.

If videotapes exist, then it’s a conspiracy.

Nothing odd about that footage of Bush sitting in the classroom reading billy goats gruff for ten minutes after news of the first crash was very quickly wispered in his ear. -phew- Nothing strange about that scene at all.

Everyone take a look at this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNQSV3BBtZ4&feature=player_embedded

Why did I post it?

America can not use the excuse of dead Americans to case dead Muslims just as the Zionists can not use the excuse of Dead jews to cause dead Muslims.

Don’t let the bastards use their crocodile tears to call for the extermination of millians.

standaman,

Thanks for picking up on that point,just a thought; I’m hoping Craig spotted that raindrop in a sea of 9/11, needs to be reviewed before the next major public inquiry. 7/7??

“Nothing odd about that footage of Bush sitting in the classroom reading billy goats gruff for ten minutes after news of the first crash was very quickly wispered in his ear. -phew- Nothing strange about that scene at all.”

1. The teacher was reading; he wasn’t reading. Get it right.

2. If he had known the attacks were coming, the better staging of the response would have been for him to confidently rise to his feet, confidently travel to Camp David (and stay there!) and have some great stills and video of him taking control of the situation.

“the better staging of the response would have been for him to confidently rise to his feet,”

Ah yes, too strange to be strange. That covers it nicely :p

But yes, Standaman’s note shouldnt get noised out:

>>

passed into law 1 month before the 7/7 attrocities.

The Inquiries Act 2005 will allow secret inquests under goverment selected (privvy councillor) high court judges & inquests without family members or/or juries present.

The same legislation will be used to undertake the inquests (NONE OF WHICH HAVE BEEN CONCLUDED YET) into the 56 deaths of July 7th 2005.

More here:

http://preview.tinyurl.com/yk2fmhv

1. Of course Bush wasn’t reading. He can’t read.

2. Bush claimed to have seen the first crash _before_ going into the classroom, commenting that he thought “that’s one terrible pilot”. The guy whispered into his ear about the _second_ plane, while he was sitting there, pretending to read along.

Now of course, Bush couldn’t have seen the plane hit the first tower, nobody did. He wouldn’t have even seen about it, because pictures weren’t broadcast at the time he went into the school. Bush either knew about it in advance, or he was lying when recalling the event.

Glenn, while you’re making things up, why don’t you just write that Bush was standing there with a plunger that was wired into the WTC? In your mind, what’s the downside to making things up? Nothing.

What!!!! You call a plane full of fuel, burning, a small scale fire!!!! Did you see the impact????

I saw the impact and its net result, after the fuel had burned off in the fireball. A small-scale localised fire. Nothing controversial there. We’ve all seen the pictures.

Tim Groves: “Conversely, if we assume a modest squib placed close to a window, there is no problem visualizing why only one window popped.”

BWWWAAAHHHAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!

Why the fuck would your Men in Black place “modest squibs” right by the window?

BWWWAAAHHHAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!

The term “squibs” has been amusing me for years. They might be useful in the movie industry to fake bullet penetrations, and have some other small-scale explosive uses, but it would be quite silly for a demolition team (whether ninja or not) to employ squibs to demolish a building. My guess is that the truthers saw the air exiting each floor (as can be predicted and is testable!) and decided that it looked like squibs used in buildings and there you have it.

Btw, there are even larger “explosions” coming out of the windows where there are atrium levels.

Not that anything would talk you out of your religion.

You people give me all sorts of laughs.

“I have a csv file from the flight data recorder information recently released for Flight UA 93 which I am analysing”

Interesting. Check to see if the cabin was ever opened. On AA77 it wasn’t, apparently.

“If anyone can provide additional information on these three aspects I would be very grateful.”

Here’s your additional information:

19 Arab Muslims did 911

Larry, why not 18 or 20?

Why do you think is was 19?

Arab’s and not Afghans?

Are you sure?

So tell Obama to remove his troops from Afghanistan.

Is that the reason for the Iraq invasion?

After 911 they invaded Afghanistan, and then they realised it was Arabs and not Afghans so decided to invade an Arab country.

Does that mean they will soon invade Saudi and Egypt when they realise their stoy says no Iraqis were involved?

19 Arab Muslims did 911

Were you in all four planes to count them?

Firstly, its worth pointing out that the official story is a conspiracy theory – it just happens to have official backing. The label ‘conspiracy theory’ is just a cheap rhetorical device to attack certain views, and more importantly to close down questioning and discussion.

There are lots of holes in the official account. Equally some alternative accounts are bizarre and wholly implausible. They could themselves be just deliberate distractions – trolling if you will.

I agree with Craig, in particular when he says “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.”

There is no particular reason I can see to doubt that the 19 hijackers were the immediate cause of the destruction of WTC1 and 2, but other people not mentioned in the official theory could still have been involved.

“Were you in all four planes to count them?”

I can count the planets.

hmmm planets, pretty Zen.

A psychiatrist freind of mine told me it would take years of expensive pyscotherapy to demolish any true believers conviction in the Magic Arab theory … or a suitably glamourised History Channel documentary.

nips, that was mue

Tony_opmoc,

thanks for your post at January 28, 2010 3:59 PM, but that’s not the clip that I remember.

Maybe Craig thinks he will lose credibility by standing up for 9/11 truth? Maybe he does believe it was an inside job? If he does imagine a loss of stature, then I think he is wrong. Just some thoughts…

19-19-19-19-19-19-Na-na-na-na-na-nineteen! Remember that song? Why is it never played these days? The average age of a GI in the Vietnam War. Because of the lack of an overt draft in the USA, the average age of US soldiers in Afghanistan is 30. Perhaps there should be a draft again.

S-s-s-s-s-sev-seve-seven-seventy-seventy-70-70-70-70-70- is the number of countries the USA has invaded since the end of WW2.

S-s-s-s-s-sev-seve-seven-seventy-seventy-70-70-70-70-70-is the number of countries in the world in which US soldiers are stationed.

You wanna count the planets? The stars? You wanna gaze at the constellations, up there in the black sky? I have a better idea. Count the body-bags instead.

“History shows beyond doubt that this lot had the motive,the form and the means to carry out 9/11″.

Steelback: I’m not saying you’re wrong but having sifted through the evidence I just don’t see clear proof of Israeli involvement. The evidence just isn’t there. There’s evidence of Israeli foreknowledge of course – the Mossad folk caught filming it all – but that’s not quite the same thing.

Well this has been enlightening!

Just a rehash of thoroughly debunked claims from 2004, as invented and spread by insane conspiracy-minded right-wing Americans when they’re not focusing on Mexicans and aliens.

I have to say that I’m quite impressed with industry experts showing up here! And I could, of course, predict their outlook.

One difference between this and the standard relitigation of the issues from 2004 is that this is a British site, so the Jews were going to be blamed fairly immediately.

I still find it hilarious when lefty Brits get manipulated by nutter right-wing Americans.

Here’s an odd thing:

As the Bazant & Zhou white paper of September 2001 forms the basis of subsequent analyses of the collapses, I thought I had best at least familiarise myself with it (‘Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse??”Simple Analysis’). So I read it – twice. Putting aside the temperature claims (which we now know were considerably lower), I concluded that it was a quite reasonable and certainly scientific explanation of the events.

I thought it wise to compare the paper with the actual events, though. For this, I studied the footage from the mainstream documentary ‘WTC- the first 24 hours’.

Compare this statement by Bazant & Zhou:

“At that moment, the upper part has acquired an enormous kinetic energy

and a signi?cant downward velocity. The vertical impact of the

mass of the upper part onto the lower part stage 4 applies enor-

mous vertical dynamic load on the underlying structure, far ex-

ceeding its load capacity, even though it is not heated.”

with the actual observed events:

http://s267.photobucket.com/albums/ii303/frankverismo/collapseseq.jpg

The top segment simply disintegrates as it descends and in no way falls as an intact unit. As such, the ‘enormous vertical dynamic load’ simply doesn’t exist. Drop a closed sack of sand on someone from 10 floors up and you’ll probably kill them. Drop only the sand and the dynamic load is so dispersed as to be virtually harmless. Note also that as the upper part descends, the intact floors below remain stationary.

A door I had hoped to close merely opened wider. Science cannot explain events in a vaccuum – they have to accord with the observed phenomena or they are without merit.

Further investigation only seemed to throw up more problems that it solved. For instance, the 47 steel columns that

form the vertical load-bearing core of the towers are approx 6 inches wide at the roof, tapering down to a colossal 4 and a half feet where they meet the bedrock. Not only does the building self-destruct through the path of most resistance, that resistance is increasing by several orders of magnitude. That this can be achieved by the actions of a disintegrated upper section at roughly 1.5 x freefall speed, to me, stretches credibility beyond breaking point.

Count the body-bags, count the body-bags…

yeh right larry ‘industry experts’ means Frazers offhand calculations that demo would require hundreds of explosive charges placed everywhere, OR a plane crash … and an ‘architect’ called ‘chris’ who cant generalise about the properties of steel alloys used, claims aircraft strikes arent considered in skyscraper design and then misquotes airliner weights when its pointed out that they are -and then just resorts to bemoaning others lack of expertese.

And the Jews werent blamed ‘fairly immediately’ they have only just been mentioned by a very uncharacteristic commentor.

You are just full of crap and hysterical jinks larry.

Hi All,

I’m still looking for the video clip I described at January 28, 2010 3:30 PM.

Anyone?

Sorry Clark I didnt see that bit of News. Remarkable that you recall it after all this time!

Hi Crab,

it struck me as incongruous at the time, which is why it lodged in my mind. Of course, my recollection could be wrong, which is why I’m after the clip.

There was lots of stuff that day that was odd, like deja vu. A friend ‘phoned, he said “put the TV on, you just won’t believe it”, and you know what? I never really have. I got the TV going between the impacts, and sat there wondering if there’d be another, and there was. I looked at the burning tower, sort of knowing that it shouldn’t collapse, but also knowing that it would. Somehow, I wasn’t surprised to hear about Building Seven in the evening.

So it’s probably all my fault, a figment of my warped imagination somehow made real.

Have you visited the “Global Consciousness Project”?

http://noosphere.princeton.edu/

Apparently, the whole world knew it was going to happen before it did:

http://noosphere.princeton.edu/911formal.html

I’m totally confused with UA93 data:

Here is another analysis in a video presentation:

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread336720/pg1

Part of the problem with all this is the way people keep overstating things. It seriously reduces the chances of converging on the truth…

On second thoughts, I overstated that; the quality of argument here has generally been pretty good.

“WT7 collapsed for no apparent reason”

did you happen to notice the building falling on it?

“Frazer, my friend also destroys land mines and UXO’s and believes 9/11 wa an inside job.?

If that’s true, he should speak up. Compared to some of the silly gooses that serve as “experts” for the inside job hypothesis, his expertise on the subject would be GROUNDBREAKING.

However, I don’t think it’s true. I don’t think he exists.

“did you happen to notice the building falling on it?”

No, but I saw it get a liberal coating of dust.

Hi Clark,

I wasnt expecting to see the tower/s collapse, when i did i new they werent just collapsing/falling apart/toppling, they were doing something that begged explaination… I bought the first ‘structural’ explaination documentary i saw, until i checked on the controversy and found that the documentry had completely omitted the towers internal structure…

Anyway, it was later i started picking up on cognitive stunts, the fake obl video, the closing of the statue of liberty, the ill glamours in news reporting… I cant be sure about the extents and details of population perception control involved, so i dont dwell on the subject, but I cant deny the towers collapse were never properly investigated or explained.

Greater thinkers and doers than i might get round to dealing with it all someday, in the meanwhile i have my little well meaning unrelated projects. And ongoing curiousity and shame at the suffering in the world.

The princeston noosphere project looks like a pretty game to me, i could have a dig in their data and graphics sometime – it looks etherial. Im of the Derren Brown school of conciousness these days, but i do hold onto a little dream of paraphysical concious effects :]

twas i again’ but nighto’

I think David Kelly was murdered. I don’t think JFK or MLK were murdered by loners. I think the CIA, possibly through Blackwater, probably had a hand in the Tashkent “bombs” of 2003/4. I helped blow the whistle on extraordinary rendition and torture – that’s one hell of a secret conspiracy.

I am not scared at all to take on the “Establishment” line. But I think about 9/11 precisely what I have posted about 9/11.

Craig,

Do you feel like you’ve read enough to state without equivocation that JFK and MLK were killed not by loners? Have you read the books that answer every single one of the so-called “anomalies.”

Is your belief that David Kelly was murdered on the same level as your belief that JFK was murdered by someone other than a loner?

We’re supposed to believe that highly paid law graduates from “one of the best law schools in the USA” go around foreign blogs yelling

“BWWWAAAHHHAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!”

Please … Larry sounds more like a teenager.

————————————-

“It would just need too many people to be involved. Someone would have objected.”–Craig

This is my biggest problem with believing it was an inside job – despite the fact that I agree that there are strings of holes in the official story.

Why no film has been released from so many cameras around the Pentagon is a mystery to me.

I saw two grainy bits that (I think) came from only two cameras. I saw no plane. One assumes that anything to do with national security goes on inside the building and not outside on the footpaths or green spaces, or indeed the lamp-posts. If the plane was caught on camera, they need only release a small piece of footage. So where is it? And why was the hole in the wall so small? And if the wings were sheared off, where are they in the aftermath pics? And the engines that should be with them?

But an ‘inside job’ would appear to mean an awful lot of people prepared to mass murder Americans (and others), and sworn to some secrecy agreement afterwards. And that’s where I come unstuck. Is anyone aware of a site where an estimate has been made of the number that would have had to be involved, and who kept their mouths shut ever since? That would be interesting.

And Larry, the plural of silly goose is not silly gooses.

“I saw the impact and its net result, after the fuel had burned off in the fireball. A small-scale localised fire. Nothing controversial there. We’ve all seen the pictures.”

Fair enough but I suggest you go to the optician and have your eyesight tested because the fireball I saw was around fifteen storeys in diameter which is about 50 metres and subsequent fire didn’t seem small scale.

If that is all you have left to say, a small localised fire, then you are an idiot and I won’t bother to continue as it is clear you can’t listen to facts that don’t suit you view.

“Just a rehash of thoroughly debunked claims”–Larry

As a lawyer, Larry, you won’t mind me pointing out that that is about the sixth or seventh time you’ve talked on this blog about something being “thoroughly debunked” without pointing us in the direction of the debunking.

chris: you appear to have missed the “after the fuel had burned off in the fireball” bit. I’m talking about what was left after the fireball – geddit?

“The Assassination of John F. Kennedy”…

http://tinyurl.com/zxnjr

“Dorothy Kilgallen”…

tinyurl.com/ra962

“BWWWAAAHHHAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!”

Yes, he does that a lot. I wonder whether he types it out each time, or has it in a little text file on his desktop so he can copy and paste as required.

Larry -

No. There are better books to read and only one life to live.

“I think that” is not in the least an unequivocal statement of fact. It is actually the opposite.

Craig,

As to JFK:

I’m sure you’re familiar with Vincent Bugliosi; I recommend his book on the subject: Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy

(reclaiminghistory.com).

I’ll assume he’s got solid bona fides with you, as he wrote http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Prosecution_of_George_W._Bush_for_Murder

Craig, it’s just a bit disturbing that you would declare, positively and without question, that JFK was not killed by a loner. It does shed some light onto your belief that David Kelly was murdered.

Merkin:

“What is factual is that WT7 collapsed for no apparent reason – not even a plane crashing into it for a fig leaf.”

The disparity between NIST’s analysis and the observed events are even more pronounced when it comes to Building 7. Is it possible for a steel-frame hi-rise to collapse in a textbook controlled demolition fashion and yet not be a controlled demolition?

Being a US government body, no one need feign surprise that NIST’s answer was ‘yes’. However, if such a thing were possible, their models of the collapse should closely, if not exactly, match the actual observed collapse. Despite more than 7 years of study and a sizeable budget, they do nothing of the sort.

If NIST claim something is possible, but then fail to demonstrate said claim, despite plentiful time and resources, the only logical conclusion to be reached is that that claim is false.

“And Larry, the plural of silly goose is not silly gooses.”

Steven Pinker would disagree. Not that he matters or it matters; language can change.

dreoilin,

Every silly goose claim on this thread was answered years ago.

You apparently have questions about the Pentagon. Here are answers:

http://debunk911myths.org/topics/Pentagon

Will you read through this link? Promise me you’ll read through this link, OK?

frank verismo, do you think there was ANY truther who said, when the NIST report on WTC 7 came out, “Well, looks like I was wrong”? No, there wasn’t.

this is a religion to you people.

There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding about how elites operate.It is pathetically naive to assume that elites have our best interests at heart.This is emphatically not the case.

Anglo-American elites have traded arms,narcotics,and slaves (black and white)over centuries.They have run revolutions,subversion,wars and revolutions.In concert with organized crime and fifth column networks established centuries ago these elites see eugenics and scientific dictatorship as the best means to continue their domination and maintain their real estate assets.

Without some historical understanding of how the British Royal-Rothschild Empire drug cartels and attendant Hofjuden-financed intelligence and offshore banking networks operate 9/11 will remain an unsolved crime.

Check out this ground-breaking study from 1978.As true now as it was then.

Read Dope Inc

http://www.freedrive.com/file/304835,dope-inc—britain-usa-drug-trade–war.p

frank verismo, as to Building 7, please read this:

http://debunk911myths.org/topics/7_World_Trade_Center

By the way, folks, you can always read more or ask questions at

http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=64

“Will you read through this link?”

I’ve read it Larry. Pretty thin isn’t it?

Firstly, the pictures of odd pieces of debris make the sceptics’ case really. The question is: where’s the vast hulk of a passenger jet?

Secondly, the “impact” photo is shrouded in smoke. Why didn’t they show instead one of the photos clearly showing the the scorched window through the plane apparently flew?

Thirdly, the pictures of victims’ remains are most likely to those of Pentagon staff.

Fourthly, it’s a little disingenuous to cite Barbara Olson’s alleged phonecall when even the FBI concedes it didn’t happen.

Fifthly, none of the security camera frames show a plane.

Do you really find this stuff convincing?

passenger jet pics:

3rd and 4th picture of the second column here:

http://debunk911myths.org/topics/Pentagon_debris

Of course the plane is not intact – it crashed.

Look at this picture of the ValuJet crash – WHERE IS THE PLANE! OH NO! CONSPIRACY!

http://www.cnn.com/EVENTS/1996/year.in.review/us/valujet/valujet.html

“Thirdly, the pictures of victims’ remains are most likely to those of Pentagon staff.”

You understand how DNA identification works, right? Someone here previously needed some elementary knowledge; not sure if it was you.

Larry

It really isn’t difficult. There is some stuff I know, like that Jack Straw was lying to the Iraq Inquiry, because I was an eye-witness to events. That goes for most of the torture extraordinary rendition stuff I do.

I always make it plain when I am claiming privileged or first hand knowledge.

When I am not, I make no claim my view is any more valid than your view. This blog makes no claim to infallibility.

On JFK I have an opinion on an intelligent assessment of articles or documentaries I have seen so far, and like most people I’ve seen them on both sides. But I don’t in any way claim superior authority to you on that subject. I just mentioned it as an example to disprove the notion that I am scared to admit to a non-establishment view.

We all have opinions on numerous subjects based on our state of knowledge to date. There’s nothing strange about it.

Larry:

“do you think there was ANY truther who said, when the NIST report on WTC 7 came out, “Well, looks like I was wrong”? No, there wasn’t.”

Quite. For the very reasons I outlined. NIST’s modeling bears no resemblance to the actual, observed events.

“You understand how DNA identification works, right?”

Frankly Larry, I’ve always been a little suspicious of the Pentagon’s claim that it found DNA of all the passengers, particularly since the analyses were conducted ‘in house’ rather than by civil authorities.

I have a present for the truthers here that you will not find in any truther site.

Because this is from my own knowledge and research, which unlike is being carried out in a University’s Engineering Labs and not at 5th grade. I work with composite Structures.

Composite structures fail in two phases, because two different Materials(or more) are used, each with its own maximum stress and strain levels.

What this means to you peasants is if you have something made out of one material, like a stone bridge, and you put a great big thing on it, heavier than what it can take, it will break at once. And the something goes for a bridge made of steel.

But if you take a bridge or building made from a composite of two materials, like lets say a building made from steel and concrete, and place a stress which causes a strain greater then what it can take, the brittle phase will fail first followed by the ductile phase.

What that means is the fire and impact, if it did cause it would have caused the concrete to start breaking off first, and then the steel.

To require a composite structure to fail as a single phase, a weak point will have to be created. Sort of like the fuse in an electrical circuit, If a the building had a couple of floors weakened, beams cut etc. The weakening effects of the impact and the fire could cause it to fail at that location. Materials Engineers use this, when we test materials we cut a little notch to cause failure at a set location.

I am not a truther though. I think I am undecided on the issue, because I have read both sides and I am still unconvinced. I think, like most things, the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle of a poler debate.

People probably did attempt to do what happened, and the people who are paid to stop it happening found out about it and decided to facilitate it happening. I am not stating this as fact. Just as a thought. But what I wrote about how two phase structures fail is fact. It is up to you lot to debate whether it is a relevant fact or an irrelevant fact.

MJ, just to be sure who you’re accusing of mass murder:

http://www.dcmilitary.com/dcmilitary_archives/stories/112901/12279-1.shtml

Perhaps the key point to the entire implausibility of the ‘pancake collapse’ theory is considering a very old law – conservation of momentum.

Conservation of momentum comes from Newton’s first law. A body will remain at rest or travel in uniform motion in a straight line unless acted upon by another force.

Consider the initial collapse of the top sections, which in each case would have the lightest top portion of the building, being the thinnest part of the core. We are expected to believe that as it suddenly (with a flash) lost all its structure and fell onto the floor below, the combined weight of the section above the disintegrated floor lands on the floor below. That causes the floor below to collapse under the strain, and the entire new mass falls onto the next floor. This progression continues neatly all the way down.

That’s fine, apart from one very important detail – how does each new floor suddenly assume the accumulated velocity of the falling floors above? We’re talking about a progressively heavy core structure (it having been built to bear the weight of the entire structure above, at each stage). So why did it not _substantially_ arrest the downward motion?

As Frank Verismo points out, a great deal of the mass was pulverised in any case, so the full weight of the above sections were dispersed each time a new floor was reached by the downward progression.

How did the really heavy mid to lower sections suddenly start moving at the same pace as the falling upper sections, unless they were offering _virtually no resistance at all_ – unless they were already falling themselves immediately before the progression hit them.

The towers did not come down quite at free-fall speed, but it was not far off it. It was way too close to free-fall acceleration to believe even for a moment than a substantial structure of increasing strength was being crushed by the powdered remains of the floors above.

*

If the motion was entirely downwards, with no other force than downward gravity operating after collapse was initiated, why do we see massive steel girders ejected out laterally for hundreds of feet? Why did tiny body parts (sections of finger, etc.) appear on rooftops hundreds of yards away?

In standard building collapses, one would find at least a few things intact. A chair, a monitor, something. How come the biggest items found were fragments of telephone keypads?

Look at the column on the last picture on this page: How did it acquire that precise cut, consistent with a controlled demolition?

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/thermite.htm

*

But back to conservation of momentum. Inertia dictates that a mass will not suddenly assume the velocity of the moving object falling onto it, even if it is so tenuously structured that a feather falling onto it would initiate its collapse. In this case, we are talking about an increasing substantial structure the further down the building we go. Yet it offered little more resistance than fresh air on the day of 9/11.

I looked at your link, Larry:

http://debunk911myths.org/topics/7_World_Trade_Center

It did precisely nothing to address the issues I raised. Furthermore, under the title ‘Damage to 7 World Trade Center’ are several images of the wrong building. WTC7 can be seen in the extreme background.

Try not to completely waste my time again.

Glenn,

If you think thermite causes precise cuts, then you’re a moron and you can’t be helped.

Thermite.

Precise cuts.

Really?

Debunked by a child.

Moron.

frank verismo, a structural engineer would laugh at you.

The twin towers collapse looks amazing to me but the offical line seems plausable.

On the other hand. The WTC 7 collapse seems to defy any logical explaination. But when I have the time Larry, I will check out your link and see if it can shed any light.

I quite like quorn. I’m not a vegan, or even a veggie, but I eat it ocasionally. Maybe it helps not to expect it to be meat ? It’s just something else to eat.

“I think I will eat more fish and tell you all about it.”

Whale meat again.

Don’t know where, don’t know when …

9/11

9 – Numerical equivalent of the word Baha’

11 – Twin towers

This post dedicated to David Christopher Kelly, CMG 1944?”2003 RIP PBUH

Larry:

“frank verismo, a structural engineer would laugh at you.”

Folding so quickly? I’m not surprised. All you’ve done so far is hide behind (incompetent) 3rd party websites and indulge yourself in ad hominem attacks.

Seriously – is this how you behave in the real world, Larry?

“is this how you behave in the real world, Larry?”

Omigod no, he’s a highly-paid lawyer from one of the USA’s best law schools.

Very intellectual chap.

“Debunked by a child”

See? He’s been playing with thermite since he was 11. Expert.

I should be in bed …

Frank: You do wonder. If the Larry’s of this world really thought our statements were so utterly ridiculous, why not leave them stand, so everyone could see for themselves? Why are the Larry’s so desperate that they throw tantrums to get attention?

The more screaming and shouting a Larry-type does, the more one should pay attention to that which they want to distract. I’ll look out the next time “larry” screaming-fit occurs, because a good post must have preceded it. A Larry-type might actually serve a useful purpose here in flagging decent posts – so he should keep up the good work

Hi Crab,

yes, I like Derren Brown, too. I like the ones where he does something impossible, and then explains how it was possible. I recognise some of his techniques from my brief interest in Neurolinguistic Programming (Bandler and Grinder) some decades ago.

Physics will have to come to terms with consciousness at some point, I reckon, and so does Roger Penrose. The Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics can’t just have some undefined phenomena collapsing all the wave functions, after all.

RetroPsychoKenesis. You can try this one at home:

http://www.fourmilab.ch/rpkp/experiments/bellcurve/

The whole Fourmilab site is worth a look.

dreoilin:

“Omigod no, he’s a highly-paid lawyer from one of the USA’s best law schools.”

He told you this? Good grief. Move over, Perry Mason.

There’s plenty of evidence that suggests the Bush administration did nothing to try to prevent the 9-11 attacks – despite repeated warnings from flight school instructors, FBI agents, CIA agents and German intelligence.

Well before 2001 the Project for a New American Century – which included many people who would be senior members of the Bush administration – suggested it would require another “Pearl Harbour” to get public support for the increases in defence spending and “regime changes” in Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran which it’s members wanted.

That may be why Bush and friends ignored every warning and had the upper ranks of the FBI ignore warnings by field agents.

For more on this, with sources supplied see these two posts on my blog

http://inplaceoffear.blogspot.com/2008/11/9-11-warnings-ignored-timeline-summer.html

http://inplaceoffear.blogspot.com/2008/11/they-didnt-even-try-to-keep-americans.html

Glenn:

“Why are the Larry’s so desperate that they throw tantrums to get attention?”

It did occur that Larry’s intention was to derail the thread. Any appearance of sincerity he began with petered out quite swiftly.

“A Larry-type might actually serve a useful purpose here in flagging decent posts”

Fair point!

Just got back from working out.

I was a highly paid lawyer.

It’s still the case that I graduated from one of America’s best law schools. I previously brought that up to make a point about who is qualified to assess the legality of an action under international law (and I don’t think it’s the exclusive province of public international lawyers).

“suggested it would require another “Pearl Harbour” to get public support for the increases in defence spending and “regime changes” in Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran which it’s members wanted.”

LIE. And you know it. For one thing, they were talking about rebuilding America’s defenses. A “new Pearl Harbor” (to the extent mentioned) had nothing to do with foreign interventions.

Once again. FAIL.

“Frank: You do wonder. If the Larry’s of this world really thought our statements were so utterly ridiculous, why not leave them stand, so everyone could see for themselves?”

You might be right. Your movement has failed, after all. You look like idiots. Do the anti-war people in the UK really embrace you, or do they treat you as idiots, as they do in the U.S. and Canada?

Larry what you did by trying to to say “You lot disagree with me because you all hate Jews” is despicable.

And don’t deny it. That is what this sentence of yours as well as many others you have used means:

“One difference between this and the standard relitigation of the issues from 2004 is that this is a British site, so the Jews were going to be blamed fairly immediately.”

Your use of attacks on Jews to justify yourself and attack your adversaries is a slap in the face of every Jew who has suffered from antisemitism. Both you and another person on this site have made a habit of that, and you should stop such childish behaviour.

That sort of behaviour is very common amongst Zionist war mongers and it is the only way they can shut the mouths of those who disagree with them when it comes to justifying the unjustifiable.

You behaved like this little girl on this clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNQSV3BBtZ4&feature=player_embedded

And you should be treated just like that little spoilt girl who cries antisemitism because she can’t defend the murders of the Innocent in any other way.

So Larry if you have to defend the indefensible, do it like a man, and stop whimpering antisemitism like a bitch on heat who fails to attract the dogs.

I see you people who use racist attacks on Jews as slogans to win arguments in the same light as I see those who desecrate the grave of Holocaust victims.

Glenn -

Look at this picture of the ValuJet crash and tell me where the plane is:

http://www.cnn.com/EVENTS/1996/year.in.review/us/valujet/valujet.html

Arsalan: That youtube reference (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNQSV3BBtZ4&feature=player_embedded) was brilliant, thank you. It called these despicable anti-gentiles out with their games full on.

May I suggest you do not rise to the bait, and just use these “wide-stance” Larry types for their function – getting all hysterical whenever a good post has been made.

We’ve had no less than four L-stars for my latest argument concerning a controlled demolition by demonstration of the laws of inertia and momentum, for instance. So I say, keep it up, “Larry” – keep flagging those posts which need attention!

Do you guys even get that Craig Murray doesn’t believe your silly conspiracy?

And he’s seen the worst of the U.S./UK governments!

Glenn, what was your argument? I must have missed it.

“Do you guys even get that Craig Murray doesn’t believe your silly conspiracy?”

So what?

And when a 911 Denier brings up “the laws of inertia and momentum” they sound EXACTLY like an Evolution Denier bringing up the law of conservation of energy.

Evolution Deniers: believe that there is a conspiracy among the vast numbers of experts in biology to deny their faith in intelligent design

911 Deniers: believe that there is a conspiracy among the vast numbers of experts in structural engineering (and many other fields) to deny their faith in inside jobby job idiocy

Arsalan,

good post.

Larry,

you’re out of order.

Which post by Arsalan was good?

Larry,

I like most of Arsalan’s posts; he has a good sense of humour and he makes good and moral points. But I was particularly referring to his 12:47 post. His most recent post on this thread.

MJ: “Frankly Larry, I’ve always been a little suspicious of the Pentagon’s claim that it found DNA of all the passengers, particularly since the analyses were conducted ‘in house’ rather than by civil authorities.

Posted by: MJ at January 28, 2010 10:57 PM”

MJ, didn’t we already go over this?

The Pentagon DID NOT claim to have the DNA of all the passengers. A link that YOU posted showed that the remains of Dana Falkenberg – who was two or three years old – were never found. They also said they couldn’t identify the remains of a number of Pentagon staffers.

It’s strange that you demand extra evidence for the deaths of the passengers and hijackers than you do for the deaths of the Pentagon staffers.

You even wanted me to dig up newspaper reports of the funerals of the passengers as proof. Which I did. Only you went on to say that you didn’t believe the reports.

What evidence do you need to see that you will believe?

Would you believe the testimony of the firefighters in “Firefight” which describes finding the remains of the passengers?

If your “hypothesis” is unfalsiable then it is no hypothesis.

glenn, Norman Finkelstein is cool and he dresses well too.

Here is another one:

http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/finkelstein-on-holocaust-remembrance-day/

I think what America is using 911 in the exactly the samething Israel uses the holocoast.

They both use the dead to justify killing.

We should not allow them to. The worse way to insult the people who died in 911 is to use their deaths as an excuse to kill others. The worst way to insult the people who died in the holocoast is to use their deaths as an excuse to kill others. And that is what is happening.

Clark, I wasn’t the one who brought up the Jews. Someone above brought up Jewish bankers, etc. etc. I mentioned that this is a British thread, so Jews will be blamed for 911 immediately, and then Arsalan went off on me bringing up Jews.

So that’s a good post for you, is it?

Larry,

see, there’s another one by Arsalan. He sees clearly past the surface to issues of right and wrong, and he makes the right choice.

If only the same could generally be said of lawyers. The law is becoming divorced from right and wrong, and that is worrying.

Such issues are far more important than arguing over the details of 911.

“You even wanted me to dig up newspaper reports of the funerals of the passengers as proof. Which I did. Only you went on to say that you didn’t believe the reports.”

Angrysoba, damn, was that the weasel that didn’t believe the passengers died? I get these people mixed up?

What a religion these people have. It would be easier to turn a Sunni into a Shiite.

You’re probably familiar with Mark Roberts – he talks about confronting people at Ground Zero with actual evidence, and they turn their heads away. They just don’t want to see the evidence; it’s like they’re afraid.

Interestingly, those with the best credentials on this thread don’t believe in the inside job.

Frazer, works with explosives and says the controlled demolition “theory” is impractical and that the buildings collapses don’t have the signature features of a controlled demolition.

Chris from Glasgow is an architect and has no problem believing that the plane impacts and fire brought down the towers.

Craig Murray is aware of how MI5/MI6 and other government bodies and intelligence agencies work and he finds it implausible that it was an inside job.

Larry and I are New World Order agents and we know they never did an inside job. No sireee!

Larry,

it’s a good post because it calls you out. I’ve said that you’re a bully; you’ve improved somewhat, but you still let your skill at argument obscure the truth, for yourself as much as for others, I believe.

Larry, it is better to be good and compasionate than it is to appear right.

“You’re probably familiar with Mark Roberts – he talks about confronting people at Ground Zero with actual evidence, and they turn their heads away. They just don’t want to see the evidence; it’s like they’re afraid.”

Yes, I have seen him. He’s very good. His demolition of Alex Jones who was blaring out his usual rubbish was a joy to watch. I don’t think I’ve ever seen Alex Jones so completely flustered and unable to counter.

Clark, I forgot which one you are. Now I remember – you’re the guy who claims superiority because of your ripe age of 47. Nice try at condescension, as you cozy up with crazy people (whether Islamic believers or otherwise)

I’m not interested in arguing over 911 and no one found the video clip I was looking for. I’m heading off to bed now, to get enough sleep before I go off and express my disgust at another lawer that can’t tell right from wrong.

Goodnight.

9/11 Airliners…

http://tinyurl.com/yc24883

“I don’t think I’ve ever seen Alex Jones so completely flustered and unable to counter.”

It’s just so easy to destroy these people, isn’t it? They’re used to hanging out with their own kind, or spewing their crap to people who don’t know much about 911 (or who don’t have minimal critical thinking skills).

I think if you or I ever confronted Alex Jones, it would also take only a few short minutes for him to yell out “STRAW MAN! STRAW MAN!”

MJ, you haven’t answered my questions about Andrews airforce base. Do you have any evidence for saying that Andrews airforce base had fighters on standby?

I ask this because the 9/11 Commission report explicitly says that Otis and Langley were the only alert sites with a pair of fighters each. Aircraft were later scrambled from Andrews but presumably weren’t on standby before that.

You have read the 9/11 Commission report so I would expect you to know this. David Ray Griffin wrote a BOOK on this report. Did he read it?

“and express my disgust at another lawer that can’t tell right from wrong.”

yeah, and you cozy up to crazy people and EXPLICIT racists. FUCK YOU! (Now is that not nice? Please tell me.)

Frank Verismo: “The top segment simply disintegrates as it descends and in no way falls as an intact unit. As such, the ‘enormous vertical dynamic load’ simply doesn’t exist. Drop a closed sack of sand on someone from 10 floors up and you’ll probably kill them. Drop only the sand and the dynamic load is so dispersed as to be virtually harmless.”

Really? If you dropped a load of unbounded water on someone’s head do you think it would wash straight off?

Look what happens when you put your theory into practice:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FI7BHSOVtMs&feature=related

What do you think would happen with falling steel beams and concrete?

Larry,

I saw your 1:40 post, and then went to bed. I then got up and restarted my computer to give you this message.

I’d like you to consider the possibility that I continue to converse with you because I think there may be some point, whereas I don’t answer or argue with the racists because I expect that there is none.

Bed now, and that’s final!

Glenn: “Perhaps the key point to the entire implausibility of the ‘pancake collapse’ theory is considering a very old law – conservation of momentum.

Conservation of momentum comes from Newton’s first law. A body will remain at rest or travel in uniform motion in a straight line unless acted upon by another force.”

As far as I am aware, the “pnacake theory” is the initial hypothesis of the FEMA report and the one that NIST intitially used. After putting it to the test did they not reject it and formulate a new hypothesis?

As far as I know this is the scientific method in operation. You find some initial facts. Develop a hypothesis and then test it. The hypothesis must be capable of being falsified. If not it is impossible to test because testing can only confirm the hypothesis making it meaningless.

NIST only gave the explanation for collapse initiation, which was all it was tasked to do.

It seems clear that the top stories were no longer connected to the perimeter columns meaning that it was now falling through the floor which, as Leslie Robertson said, couldn’t possibly hold the weight of so many stories.

Once the first floor gave way it fell to the next story, which was unsurprisingly no more able to support the weight of the descending upper stories and so on, down to the ground.

Larry, please don’t be mean to Clark.

Clark, with this thread the ambassador is really spoiling us. He’s allowed us to talk about 9/11 so please don’t come on to the thread and announce that you have no interest in the topic.

I’ll try and look out for the video of Palestinians. It sounds vaguely familiar but I don’t know.

Just speculating here, but maybe what you were watching was a replay of the events that day put up on a big screen maybe by Hamas.

I have heard that the attacks were celebrated in Baghdad. Conversely, in Iran I seem to recall that prayers were said for the victims instead of the usual “Marg Bar Amerikkka!” chants at its Friday sermons.

Incidentally, North Korea also condemned the terrorist attacks.

As far as I know, Tehran and Pyongyang haven’t jumped on the Truther bandwagon.

(Then again, I could be wrong about Tehran. I have heard there is an “inside job” exhibit in the old US embassy).

“The cameraman, who appears to be using a hand-held camera, keeps the camera focused on the towers, even when there is the roar overhead of the second plane coming in, and a voice is heard, saying what sounds to me like “Ah, oui”.

Wouldn’t he duck or run, or at least look up, when he is looking at a building that had just had a plane crash into it and he hears another plane roaring in? And is that voice saying “Ah, oui”?”

What the cameraman is looking at and what the camera is pointing at may be two different things.

But it doesn’t really matter. All you are saying is you can’t believe a person would behave like that. It hardly counts as evidence for an Inside Job.

“A Larry-type might actually serve a useful purpose here in flagging decent posts”

He could. The idea that there are people out there who will bite you if you say something silly is a very useful tool, and a constructive role to play, done nicely.

Sadly, he seems to be too self-indulgent to be any good at it. “You all believe stupidity so you’re all stupid” doesn’t contain enough detail or thought to be any use, he lets himself get carried away all the time.

But he must be concerned, or he wouldn’t be here, even if he doesn’t like to actually come out and say so ?

angrysoba: You said “As far as I am aware, the “pnacake theory” is the initial hypothesis of the FEMA report and the one that NIST intitially used. After putting it to the test did they not reject it and formulate a new hypothesis?”

(Was that a sly reference to the PNAC, btw?)

You then went on to argue against this point, as if I posited my entire case upon “NIST says this and…” whereas surely you know I didn’t.

I don’t care what NIST says for this line of reasoning, and I never brought it up. If someone also said something along the same lines then changed their mind, what the heck difference does it make? This is the sort of trick one might mistake another for taking as being “slippery”, please pardon the expression because I know you are well above that sort of thing.

Instead, how about tackling the point I raised in Jan 28, 2010 11:05 PM, and discussing that, instead of arguing about something someone else might have said along those lines but then retracted, together with a distorted simplification?

I don’t consider you a simple minded person, and your final sentence/paragraph does not justify your intelligence, if you considered that as a fair summary of my post on inertia.

“But he must be concerned, or he wouldn’t be here, even if he doesn’t like to actually come out and say so ?

Posted by: Richard Robinson at January 29, 2010 2:37 AM”

Mr Robinson,

What is wrong with being concerned about people spouting 9/11 Truth? Are you saying 9/11 Truth is merely a harmless little hobby or parlour game?

I don’t care about people saying that the Moon landings were faked or that Nessie exists. But 9/11 Truth is presumably not like that. Many Truthers make all kinds of sordid allegations against the families of passengers who died on the planes, the firefighters, Larry Silverstein or Jews. Their evidence is incredibly flimsy but they have this infuriating supercilious attitude that they know better because they are “awake” and don’t trust the mainstream media and they know the laws of physics etc…etc… and they are keen to dismiss anyone who actually has got credentials, or refer to those who don’t agree with them as morons or shills.

The same goes for David Kelly. These people never even met the guy and they believe they can know more about him than Dr Kelly’s wife and daughters. I wonder on whose behalf they are campaiging.

Angrysoba said: “Larry and I are New World Order agents and we know they never did an inside job. No sireee!”

Very droll and all, but do you really want to align yourself that much with the most thoroughly contemptible poster on this blog? Seriously? Because it’s remarkable how much you align, and that is not a compliment. I would suggest your public cuddling hurts your own credibility, because what – to your discredit – is seen as your counterpart has none whatsoever.

“(Was that a sly reference to the PNAC, btw?)”

Whoops! Cat’s out of the bag now!

Glenn, my point was that the collapse sequence you are talking about didn’t happen:

“Consider the initial collapse of the top sections, which in each case would have the lightest top portion of the building, being the thinnest part of the core. We are expected to believe that as it suddenly (with a flash) lost all its structure and fell onto the floor below, the combined weight of the section above the disintegrated floor lands on the floor below. That causes the floor below to collapse under the strain, and the entire new mass falls onto the next floor. This progression continues neatly all the way down.

That’s fine, apart from one very important detail – how does each new floor suddenly assume the accumulated velocity of the falling floors above? We’re talking about a progressively heavy core structure (it having been built to bear the weight of the entire structure above, at each stage). So why did it not _substantially_ arrest the downward motion?”

I’m not sure how much clearer I can make this, but the core and the perimeter were supposed to hold up the building. Each floor, as in the bit that people walk on, was NOT strong enough to hold up the stories above it. Leslie Robertson explicitly said this in his debate with Steven Jones.

So, what happened? You must have seen the photographs of the top of the towers tilting (with the south tower this was far more pronounced). It shows definitively that it was not a symmetrical top-down PNACake collapse. The top of the building had come loose at its moorings, so to speak, so it is unreasonable to assume it would have slid down a few stories and arrested. Instead you have to picture the floors internally giving way and the perimeter columns being peeled outwards almost like a banana. In fact, plenty of video shows the permimeter columns falling outwards and later photographs show the columns splayed out over a large area on the ground (indeed the WTC7 was hit by the debris as we know) proving that it didn’t collapse neatly into its own footprints.

That is what I mean by a hypothesis that was rejected.

“Very droll and all, but do you really want to align yourself that much with the most thoroughly contemptible poster on this blog?”

Oh that is simply not fair, Glenn!

Larry gets a lot of abuse simply for being American. I find it embarrassing as an Englishman to read my campatriots writing such nonsense as, “You Yanks are so fick! You obviously don’t know nuffink cos everyone nose Yanks don’t no nuffink!” (I am of course employing hyperbole so please don’t ask me to find the direct quote).

On top of that there are some exceedingly contemptible posters expressing explicit Jew hatred here. Bizarrely Larry and I have been blamed for their presence.

Angrysoba said:

“Whoops! Cat’s out of the bag now!”

Heh – now we have your credentials on the table!

But you’re not getting it, Soba, deliberately or not I cannot tell. Laws concerning inertia dictate that a mass does not magically assume the velocity of the object that lands upon it. Please re-read my “January 28, 2010 11:05 PM” post, I would far rather respond to criticism of that that reiterate the entire point.

Would it help if I declared myself to be a professor in physics, and said I was “Glenn from Edinburgh” or something?

*

Aside:

How come only nit-picking has occurred in so many recent posts, most of which are initiated or continued by the 9/11 truth deniers? And where is even one decent picture of the Pennsylvania OR the Pentagon crash, OR any the aftermath thereof? How come no True Believer has managed to explain how all of these Magic Arabs carried out their missions – death or destruction of the target – perfectly?

How come none of the Magic Arabs were tackled successfully, on any flight, even though people knew what was going on, and – most improbably! – used their mobile telephones to say what was going on? Why did tough-nut ex-forces pilots give it all up to a few crazed terrorists? How did the Magic Arabs prove to be such immensely good pilots? How did it all go so incredibly well – air force stands obligingly down, passengers and crew so obliging, all the terrorist teams hit their targets and things go even better to plan than was imagined, etc. etc. – for one day like that? Perhaps Americans want to put their hands up and say, “Yup. We are an amazingly stupid and incompetent people, and we like giving our planes over to nutty box-cutter wielding foreigners.”

But I don’t buy that about Americans, sorry – they’re just not that weak, lazy and stupid.

Angrysoba:

“Look what happens when you put your theory into practice:”

Hmmmm. Several tons of water versus a flimsy aluminium car. Hardly ‘my theory’. If you insist on using it though, consider what that same volume of water would have done if contained: the car would’ve been crushed flat. To really stretch the analogy, what we’ve got with Bazant & Zhou is your ‘unbounded water’ but resulting in the car being crushed to a height of two inches.

And we both know that ain’t gonna happen.

“Larry gets a lot of abuse simply for being American”

Perhaps I should start by saying “many of my friends are black” ?

“Larry” is not viewed with near universal contempt for being American, Larry is held in contempt because of his expressed opinions! Come on now.

angrysoba:

“and they are keen to dismiss anyone who actually has got credentials, or refer to those who don’t agree with them as morons or shills.”

Yes – repellent, isn’t it? I’ve only spotted one person accusing another of being a ‘moron’ on this thread. Have a look through and see if you can find who it is. Let me know how you get on.

Glenn:

“”Larry” is not viewed with near universal contempt for being American, Larry is held in contempt because of his expressed opinions! Come on now.”

Larry’s American?

Glenn -

Look at this picture of the ValuJet crash and tell me where the plane is:

http://www.cnn.com/EVENTS/1996/year.in.review/us/valujet/valujet.html

“Your movement has failed, after all.”

Have *some* decency, man. Our bowel problems are none of your business.

Glenn, I think we are talking at cross puposes here.

Now, just to be very, very simplistic, if you put a bowling ball on a piece of paper, the paper can’t hold the bowling ball and will break. The bowling ball will fall through.

Now, imagine 110 pieces of paper all the way down to the floor. Which piece of paper will arrest the bowling ball’s fall?

None of them, and the bowling ball will probably fall practically at free-fall.

I haven’t tried the experiment, so I don’t know if it will work. I realize there are plenty of problems with my analogy, of course, but I am using it to demonstrate approximately what I think happened.

We may be talking at cross-purposes here though.

Your next lot of many questions:

“And where is even one decent picture of the Pennsylvania OR the Pentagon crash, OR any the aftermath thereof?”

At many crash sites almost all the plane can burn up leaving little left. I don’t have a problem believing a plane crashed in Shanksville. They found the FDR there, after all.

We talked about the Pentagon ones before. Here’s a question. You do believe that Pentagon staffers were killed there don’t you? Have you seen picutres of their dead bodies? No, neither have I and I don’t want to. I won’t demand that I see the bodies of the passengers either.

“How come no True Believer has managed to explain how all of these Magic Arabs carried out their missions – death or destruction of the target – perfectly?”

They weren’t magic and they didn’t carry out their mission perfectly. One plane crashed in Shanksville, remember.

“How come none of the Magic Arabs were tackled successfully, on any flight, even though people knew what was going on, and – most improbably! – used their mobile telephones to say what was going on?”

They were on United 93 otherwise people reacted as people have reacted on many, many other hijacked aircraft. The crew and passengers mostly complied with them.

Cell phones? Well, as we know many of them used airphones. Do we really need to go through that again?

“How did the Magic Arabs prove to be such immensely good pilots?”

They weren’t magic. They had pilots licenses and had done simulator training. Why do you keep asking these questions which I’ve answered so many times already? They weren’t immensely good pilots. They only had to fly straight into buildings.

“How did it all go so incredibly well – air force stands obligingly down, passengers and crew so obliging, all the terrorist teams hit their targets and things go even better to plan than was imagined, etc. etc. – for one day like that?”

There was NO stand-down. I told you that planes were scrambled from Otis and Langley. Why do you persist in asking questions which I have answered already and then bring them up again while claiming that we are ignoring them?

Besides, how do you know things went better than imagined?

“Perhaps Americans want to put their hands up and say, “Yup. We are an amazingly stupid and incompetent people, and we like giving our planes over to nutty box-cutter wielding foreigners.”"

Again, with the canards and the strawmen. According to phone calls, the hijackers claimed to have bombs. Only Barbara Olson mentioned box-cutters, the other callers mentioned knives and mace. The hijackers were clearly very dedicated and highly trained, not magic. The passengers were clearly very scared and the pilots probably behaved according to regular procedure which was to comply with hijackers’ demands. What makes you think they would have behaved differently?

“Larry’s American?”

Yes, Larry from St. Louis, is I believe American.

“Larry gets a lot of abuse simply for being American”

Larry hasn’t received nearly as much abuse as he’s been handing out. I hope you’re not suggesting that acting the aggressive arsehole is purely a function of coming from the USA ?

“Larry hasn’t received nearly as much abuse as he’s been handing out. I hope you’re not suggesting that acting the aggressive arsehole is purely a function of coming from the USA ?”

No, I’m not the one making the connection. Apparently you are.

“Yes, Larry from St. Louis, is I believe American. ”

That’s the last time I use litotes on this site!

Here’s a coincidence:

On Wednesday, I was in a book shop with a friend of mine and picked up Catcher in the Rye. “Did you know J.D Salinger is still alive?” I asked. I said this because I had thought, for years, that he had died years ago.

Anyway, he died later that day at the age of 91.

Did I have anything to do with Salinger’s death? I don’t think so. But coincidences and strange things happen all the time. It doesn’t mean they are all planned or they’re all purposeful.

“No, I’m not the one making the connection. Apparently you are.”

Cause-and-effect doesn’t work, for you ? It’s bedtime.

“That’s the last time I use litotes on this site!

Posted by: frank verismo at January 29, 2010 4:18 AM”

Good! And stay off the magic mushrooms while you’re at it.

“It’s bedtime.”

Remember, The New World Order never sleeps!

The sun never sets on the government within the government!

This is the strength of truther evidence:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhKiAUkw7SY

“Good! And stay off the magic mushrooms while you’re at it.”

You really are a killjoy, aren’t you?

“You really are a killjoy, aren’t you?”

Alright, you can keep on the magic mushrooms as long as you remember what they do to people’s minds.

Hey look! I made a new post:

http://angrysoba.blogspot.com/2010/01/j-d-salinger-dies-i-didnt-do-it.html

Glen, you rock man! And your advice to Soba is spot on. I gave him a similar finger-waving lecture last year, but to no avail. The boy is going downhill and getting into seriously Bad Company, and I don’t mean the guys who sung “running with the pack”.

Soba, “Interestingly, those with the best credentials on this thread don’t believe in the inside job.” And intriguingly, there’s not a single structural engineer among them. There isn’t even a theologist. And amazingly, I find that you haven’t responded to any of my very reasonable questions about collapsing buildings. Well, you can lead a horse to water, they say.

Larry, you’re so full of excrement that if you gave yourself an enema, what was left of you would float off into the air like ripe dandelion seeds on a breezy spring evening. You take care now and enjoy yourself with your fellow Randi boyscouts. And don’t overdo the rootbeer.

“I find that you haven’t responded to any of my very reasonable questions about collapsing buildings.”

I haven’t seen any. Would you mind pointing them out or restating them?

I did just have a root beer lollipop. (Just quit smoking).

What a coincidence. But I don’t think Randi would be impressed.

Angrysoba,

Tim Groves relies on the argument from incredulity and resurrects the existence of squibs. Do you remember squibs? They got a lot of attention from the conspiraloons in 2004. You might have seen them in the movie The Usual Suspects – when, at the end, Keyzer Soze shoots the Kevin Pollack character and for some reason the film directors thought it would be cool to keep the special effect in the movie (or perhaps they didn’t catch it in the editing). In any event, if you’re a movie director and you want to fake gun shots or small explosions, you use squibs.

Truthers, for whatever reason, believe that small explosions were placed by the windows of the Towers. I’ll never understand why they argued that – it would seem that they would want to admit that it was air that was escaping, but maintain the argument that really big explosives or whatever were placed on the columns. By and large, they’ve dropped the squibs concept.

But then there’s Tim Groves. Tim, you failed to address the following:

Tim Groves: “Conversely, if we assume a modest squib placed close to a window, there is no problem visualizing why only one window popped.”

BWWWAAAHHHAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!

Why the fuck would your Men in Black place “modest squibs” right by the window?

BWWWAAAHHHAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!

The term “squibs” has been amusing me for years. They might be useful in the movie industry to fake bullet penetrations, and have some other small-scale explosive uses, but it would be quite silly for a demolition team (whether ninja or not) to employ squibs to demolish a building. My guess is that the truthers saw the air exiting each floor (as can be predicted and is testable!) and decided that it looked like squibs used in buildings and there you have it.

Btw, there are even larger “explosions” coming out of the windows where there are atrium levels.

Well, I have posted videos which also shows “squibs”. In one, it is a burning steel framed building in which smoke is ejected out of the windows during its collapse.

In another, there were many explosiveless demolitions using the verinage technique in which “squibs” were visible.

They both demonstrate that the Truthers are wrong to assert that the “squibs” on the Twin Towers could only be explained by explosives. In fact, they don’t behave like explosives because they billow out continuously, increasing in volume as the collapse front descends the building towards those “squibs” coming out of the building. Explosives would surely seem to emit their “ejecta” in one large burst. The opposite behaviour to the “squibs” which continue increasing for several seconds.

Anyway, that’s enough for me for one day. I’m off to the my local standing bar where the vast majority of customers neither know nor care about 9/11 Truth.

Another coincidence!

I was watching something for entirely different reasons, and I found Tim Groves’ squibs!

Start at 2:30

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrCJX7c8gvo&NR=1

Soba, since it’s Friday evening, and I don’t want to spoil your weekend, I’ll just restate one point for now.

I posted links to three controlled demolitions that went wrong. In two cases, despite an intial drop of one or more floors triggered by the “pulling” of the load-bearing members, the bulk of the buildings above the blast zone came to a halt and did not disintegrate further.

Since you are aware that in the case of WTC 1 and 2, the “block” above the impact/initial structural failure zone was ground down to powder, I wanted your opinion of why the same thing didn’t happen in these other cases in which the structures involved were much less robust than those of the WTC towers.

Remember, NIST argued that once collapse was initiated then total collapse was inevitable. And I believe this is your view too.

As Clive mentioned in the post, a domestic gas appliance explosion caused the entire corner of an East London tower block (Ronan Point) to collapse. Let me refer you to a video of a similar roughly 30-story East London tower block that resisted global collapse despite being well and truly initiated and the “block” decending nine floors or over 20 metres at a good fraction of free-fall speed. This piece of shoddy old-Labour sixties reinforced concrete and breezeblock Stalinist slum-clearance construction was not nearly as robust as the state-of-the-art massive-central-cored steel-framed WTC “blocks”, so why didn’t it disintegrate? Call it a Saganite test of your hypothesis.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsePUn5-88c&feature=related

I’ll make it easy for you, as I’m really not a vindictive man, nor an angry one. The building was Northaird Point in Hackney.

Some details were covered in this book:

http://books.google.co.jp/books?id=4eerqvOPhnoC&pg=PA277&lpg=PA277&dq=%22Hackney%22+%22demolition%22+%22tower+block%22+%22Northaird+Point&source=bl&ots=WMjXRHvnMB&sig=MIAJZiS7mGcwuG5Z5d31gTFwUHQ&hl=en&ei=zpRiS4G7FMqOkQWikojpBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CBMQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=%22Hackney%22%20%22demolition%22%20%22tower%20block%22%20%22Northaird%20Point&f=false

LMFAO. What a thread! I think the good guys (the brills) have clearly notched up a 2-1 half time lead over the shills. Roll on the second half lads. Lamby, I am sending you off for swearing. No insolence now. You can watch from the sidelines and moronically shout ‘U.S.A., U.S.A., U.S.A. whilst rhythmically girating your flab. Woooohoooooooo!’

I’d like to inroduce angrysoba to an unexpected (and I’m sure unintentional) ally of the 9/11 Truth movement: Cass Sunstein. Read his paper at tinyurl.com/3jv4wo.

It’s one of those unfortunate pieces of writing that Ernest Gowers (or was it Orwell?) deplored, that inadvertently establishes the opposite of what it intends. From a US government point of view it also reveals a little too much.

Says Sunstein:

“In a closed society, secrets are not difficult to keep, and distrust of official accounts makes a great deal of sense. In such societies, conspiracy theories are both more likely to be true and harder to show to be false in light of available information. But when the press is free, and when checks and balances are in force, government cannot easily keep its conspiracies hidden for long.”

Few would characterise the US as an open society, with a free press and ‘checks and balances’. It seems that on Sunstein’s advice we should have a presumption in favour of the conspiracy theories.

Then taking this:

“An especially useful account suggests that what makes (unjustified) conspiracy theories unjustified is that those who accept them must also accept a kind of spreading distrust of all knowledge-producing institutions, in a way that makes it difficult to believe anything at all. [...] How many other things must not be believed, if we are not to believe something accepted by so many diverse actors?”

…together with this…

“For most Americans, a claim that the United States government attacked its own citizens, for some ancillary purpose, would make it impossible to hold onto a wide range of other judgments.”

…one can begin to see the source of Sunstein’s anxiety. If US complicity in the attacks of 9/11 is established as fact, surely it’s the end of the line for the neo-cons, and all dependent mythologies? Myself, I wouldn’t be so sanguine – America is a funny place.

It’s clear from reading the paper in its entirety that Sunstein is not really concerned about, or even interested in, conspiracy theories in general. It’s just that big, bad, nasty one – 9/11. He even discusses the ‘synergistic’ merit in attacking all conspiracy theories in order to cloak this interest in just one of them.

If it was the remit of angrylarry to supress discussion of 9/11 and heap abuse and ridicule on anyone who attempted it, then I think they will fare badly in their next performance review. The posts here reveal the ‘foaming, swivel-eyed, conspiraloons’ as the people with evidence and reason (not to mention the laws of physics) on their side, and the debunkers as merely repetitive and unimaginatively abusive bores.

As a result of the activity of the debunkers we’ve all discovered that we’re not crazy – that there are perfectly sane, literate and educated people who believe that 9/11 was a false-flag attack. We also get to pass around links to information that might never have turned up otherwise – the conspiracy of conspiracists turns out to be a wide one. Here for your collection are some more foaming, swivel-eyed conspiraloons:

Michael Meacher (perhaps the only man of principle left in the Labour Party): tinyurl.com/2tojtw

Professor David Proe & Ian Thomas (University of Melbourne comment on NIST report on WTC7): tinyurl.com/yg69ec7

Robert Fisk (journalist, The Independent): tinyurl.com/3lwadm

It only remains for me to thank angrylarry for his work here.

‘the whole 9/11 project is intrinsically linked . . . . .

You are entitled to believe that. others believe that the Protocols of Zion, Bilderberg, Templars, Freemasons and various other permutations are intrinsically linked to everything’.

I am disappointed at the conflation by Craig of skepticism about 9/11 with belief in the Protocols.

As a Jew – though not a Zionist – who does believe there is something fishy about the collapse of these buildings, I am quite insulted.

Are we here to discuss 911 or respond to AngryLarry?

Are we here to exchange ideas about 911 or are we here to respond to AngryLarry?

From what I have seen AngryLarry have managed to take control of the entire forume. They decide what we talk about, not us.

I think we should read each other’s posts more than we read theirs. And I think we should respond to each other more than we respond to them.

I am going to cut and past what I wrote at the top, read it, think about it and respond. And I will think about what you say about what I say.

This is what I wrote:

I have a present for the truthers here that you will not find in any truther site.

Because this is from my own knowledge and research, which unlike is being carried out in a University’s Engineering Labs and not at 5th grade. I work with composite Structures.

Composite structures fail in two phases, because two different Materials(or more) are used, each with its own maximum stress and strain levels.

What this means to you peasants is if you have something made out of one material, like a stone bridge, and you put a great big thing on it, heavier than what it can take, it will break at once. And the something goes for a bridge made of steel.

But if you take a bridge or building made from a composite of two materials, like lets say a building made from steel and concrete, and place a stress which causes a strain greater then what it can take, the brittle phase will fail first followed by the ductile phase.

What that means is the fire and impact, if it did cause it would have caused the concrete to start breaking off first, and then the steel.

To require a composite structure to fail as a single phase, a weak point will have to be created. Sort of like the fuse in an electrical circuit, If a the building had a couple of floors weakened, beams cut etc. The weakening effects of the impact and the fire could cause it to fail at that location. Materials Engineers use this, when we test materials we cut a little notch to cause failure at a set location.

I am not a truther though. I think I am undecided on the issue, because I have read both sides and I am still unconvinced. I think, like most things, the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle of a poler debate.

People probably did attempt to do what happened, and the people who are paid to stop it happening found out about it and decided to facilitate it happening. I am not stating this as fact. Just as a thought. But what I wrote about how two phase structures fail is fact. It is up to you lot to debate whether it is a relevant fact or an irrelevant fact.

Posted by: Arsalan at January 28, 2010 11:02 PM

Soba: your ‘analogy’ is no such thing. Bowling balls and pieces of paper? Which -

in your analogy – would be the bowling balls, and which would be the pieces of

paper? Are you seriously expecting anyone to believe that the twin towers were

of such feeble construction that they in any way resembled a teetering 110 story

construction of bowling balls suspended on pieces of paper?

Far more accurate an analogy would be if you had a tower of 110 bowling balls

with several iron rods running up the middle of them, holding them in place.

And then if one whipped a couple of bowls out of (say) positions 88-90, you

(personally, you) would expect to see the bowls 90-110 crash down onto bowl

88, and they’d all crush each other down to the bottom at near free-fall speed.

As should be obvious, no such thing could possibly happen.

Anyway, we’re not talking about bowling balls or pieces of paper. We’re talking

about an increasingly strong structure being progressively destroyed by the

pulverised remains of the tower above and _offering no resistance at all_

to that collapse.

That massive plume is the powdered remains of floors as they disintegrated.

That fine dust which coated lower Manhattan used to be the building. Gravity

induced collapses simply would not do that.

Gravity induced collapses would not cause large steel girders to leap out

horizontally for hundreds of feet, nor would it turn people into tiny little

pieces, so that minute body-parts would land on rooftops far distant.

Gravity acts straight downwards after all.

*

Other points – the Magic Arabs did carry out their tasks perfectly as I said:

death or destruction of the target. Those in Pennsylvania achieved the

former.

*

You ask “We talked about the Pentagon ones before. Here’s a question.

You do believe that Pentagon staffers were killed there don’t you? Have

you seen picutres of their dead bodies? No, neither have I and I don’t

want to. I won’t demand that I see the bodies of the passengers either.”

With all due respect to your sensibilities, of course Pentagon staffers

might have been killed by virtue of the damage done to their building.

But you’re boot-strapping in assuming there were passenger bodies

because you’ve assumed a passenger plane hit the Pentagon. Bodies

do not vapourise, so where were they?

*

Passengers were supposedly telephoning people to say goodbye,

because Magic Arabs were going to destroy the flight. Would they

have remained seated, belt fastened, seat in upright position and

the tray properly folded away in such circumstances? I sure as

hell wouldn’t have!

*

They didn’t flight “straight into buildings” by any means – have you

even looked at the routes they took? Nothing straight about that

at all. A few hours in a simulator does not prepare one for such

a feat, you need to stop claiming you’ve explained that point.

And I know you’re exasperated, but you haven’t explained how they

became such good pilots, nor how mobile cell ‘phones all worked

so well, nor why procedures were not followed that day in

intercepting the planes.

It is _not_ standard procedure for pilots to give up the controls to

hijackers, where did you get that one from? Why did you claim pilots

were just following standard procedure?

Please – enough of the strained patience act. You haven’t gone

near an explanation of my points on inertia. Bowling balls and

pieces of paper indeed!

Oh sorry, I should have put in the missing words.

After “own knowledge and research, which unlike” read the words “Larry’s Fission research”

Arsalan says:

“Are we here to discuss 911 or respond to AngryLarry?

Are we here to exchange ideas about 911 or are we

here to respond to AngryLarry?”

(May I please suggest hitting return after 60-odd

characters, because a long line is burdensome to read,

with the page width set way wider than our browsers.)

I’ve been responding to the Official Liners – at least,

to Soba – because he’s at least attempting to explain

away the impossibility of what we all saw that day.

I don’t bother with “Larry” – he’s a busted flush but

without ever having shown any potential.

But you’re right, it’s time to move on from repetitions

from people who are just expressing their disbelief,

and wriggling around to avoid the obvious.

You are right about different components failing at

different times, and we would not expect to see an

entire couple of floors fail as a unit (with a mighty

bang and flash!) neatly onto the section below, so that

it cleanly and progressively falls down. That is just

not going to happen.

Tim,

Thanks for that. I believe that what happened was that you posted a comment which contained too many links putting it into moderation. This is why I hadn’t noticed it before.

The videos you present show demolitions that fail but don’t seem to rule out the fact that a gravitational collapse CAN happen. All they seem to show is that they SOMETIMES DO fail.

My opinion, which is by no means expert, is that they failed because the forces bearing down on the lower part of the building were too weak to break it. However, in the case of WTC1 and WTC2 the load was much greater than that in the building you showed and, more importantly, SHIFTED from its supporting columns to the FLOOR, ie it had come loose from the perimeter walls which were supposed to hold up the structure.

As I showed with the verinage demolitions, sometimes all that is needed is gravity and a large weight to crush down the floors below. We have to agree that that IS possible otherwise they wouldn’t attempt it with such a success rate.

In fact, if your videos are supposed to prove anything they only prove that controlled demolitions with explosives don’t always work which actually detracts from your hypothesis.

Now, here is a video of a steel-framed building collapsing with “squibs” being emitted from the windows.

Do you agree that this building crushed the lower floors down to the ground and that “squibs” needn’t be actual explosives?

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ff1_1210707903

Glen.

Up until 9/11 no one had conceived of the possibility that hijackers would deliberately crash an aeroplane so it was normal for passengers and crew to obey the high jackers. Certainly pilots would not expect to turn control of the aircraft over to the hijackers but they would expect to allow them into the cockpit and ask to be flown to some specified place. Probably the hijackers killed both pilots as soon as they entered the cockpit. Box cutters are enough for slitting a carotid artery. Only on the flight that crashed in Pennsylvania did passengers and remaining crew become aware of the hijackers plans and they were no longer intimidated by a few men with box cutters.

Glenn, you keep making silly remarks about “Magic Arabs”. You are yet to explain what makes the hijackers “magic” and are expecting me to defend a silly hypothesis of your own making.

Many of your points are way too nebulous for me to respond to and require me to do too much work. I’m not interested in writing out a full summary of what I understand to happen on that day as you will only ask me to explain more and more about highly technical things that neither of us know about.

You think you can JAQ off about such technical matters and the fact that someone can’t answer them means it was an inside job, but you were convinced about an inside job because of things that have since been debunked.

Could I also ask what would count as evidence that will falsify your hypothesis that it was an inside job? If you can’t provide me with what will convince you that you are wrong then you can’t claim to be approaching this rationally or scientifically.

Glenn, you have no idea how you would react in a frightening situation like the passengers aboard those flights.

Stop pretending you would be some all-conquering hero because despite what you believe to have been the case there have been many hijackings prior to the 9/11 hijackings and many of those passengers probably would have believed themselves as brave as you say you are.

Carlyle Moulton writes:

“Up until 9/11 no one had conceived of the possibility

that hijackers would deliberately crash an aeroplane”

Indeed? From thinkprogress.org :

CLAIM: ?I don?t think anybody could have predicted that they would try to

use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile.?

- National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 5/16/02

FACT: On August 6, 2001, the President personally ?received a one-

and-a-half page briefing advising him that Osama bin Laden was

capable of a major strike against the US, and that the plot could

include the hijacking of an American airplane.?

In July 2001, the Administration was also told that terrorists had

explored using airplanes as missiles.

- [Source: NBC, 9/10/02; LA Times, 9/27/01]

This is largely why Bush slept on an aircraft carrier at the G-8

meeting a couple of month earlier. There was also talk about

terrorists crashing planes into the conference.

In any case, the crew would not give up the controls to hijackers -

that is not standard procedure.

Glen.

You are allowing the emotional reaction to seeing the towers come down in what looks like a perfectly arranged controlled demolition to override your rational thought processes. The logic you are following is that since it looked like a controlled demolition therefore it must be a controlled demolition.

If I follow that logic for a moment and postulate that there must have been demolition charges placed in the building and coincidentally placed at different floor levels in the two towers and coincidentally at that level in each tower into which on the same day they were to be detonated some people flew 200 tonne jet airliners. The charges went off some time after the serendipitously arriving planes.

Do you realize how absurd the coincidence would be? The people who placed the charges in each tower knew at what floor the hijacked airliners flown by amateur pilots would arrive and when they would arive so that they could time their explosives to go off less than two hours afterwards. Also the fire started by the aeroplanes did not prematurely incinerate the explosives. High explosives will only detonate if set off by a detonator and sometimes a train of intermediate explosives, but if ignited they will burn without exploding. (Vietnam era soldiers used to use blocks of C4 for their cooking fires). Explosives placed at the level in the towers of the plane impacts would have burned to nothing before their supposed detonation time.

One of the principles of science is too choose the simpler of competing explanatory hypotheses, this is known as “Occam’s razor”. The simpler explanation is that the aircraft impact and fire damaged the WTC and the damage and weakening of the structures was sufficiently uniform that the building collapsed in a way reminiscent of a controlled demolition.

Incidentally the fuel capacity of a Boeing 767-200 is some 90,000 litres. The WTC planes may not have had full tanks but they would have had some tens of thousands of litres of fuel, enough to start a very big fire very quickly. The WTC air crash fires were very big and very intense, much more so than the kind of fire expected in a building which starts at one location and only has the combustibles normally in the building as fuel.

The WTC towers may have been designed to resist the impact of a 707 but the maximum takeoff weight of a 707 is only about 100,000 Kg as against 200,000 Kg for a 767. Incidentally all these aircraft statistics can be found in 30 seconds using Google.

The fact that the twin towers began collapsing at the impact points seems to mean nothing to Truthers.

Hey, Glenn, would you explain to me how the buildings were rigged to fall apart from those very impact points and how the planes’ impacts were unable to detonate whatever explosives or thermite charges were pre-planted in the buildings when they struck?

Glen.

Before 9/11 passengers and crew on hijacked aircraft did not normally think that the hijackers might want to use the plane as a kamakaze missile.

No, it is not normal procedure for pilots to give control of the aircraft to a terrorist but do you think that the pilots in this instance had any choice in the matter if two men came up behind them and slit their carotid arteries? People seated in for example a pilots seat are at a disadvantage when attacked from behind, especially if they are not expecting an attack.

I think the passages below form an excellent snap-shot of the current situation with 9/11 research…

Vincent Salandria was perhaps the first JFK researcher to come to believe that the truth of the assassination could be better approached by large-scale considerations than by focusing on details. Here is a brief selection from Gaeton Fonzi’s 1993 book The Last Investigation that vividly expresses this sentiment, which has now been adopted by many researchers:

QUOTE -”By late 1975, when I was beginning work as a Government investigator on the Kennedy assassination, I had not seen or spoken with Vince Salandria for a number of years… I moved to Florida and, because of other demands, found little time to devote to the assassination. But Vince Salandria had become something of a legend among the growing circle of Warren Commission critics. Almost everyone who planned to write a book about the Kennedy assassination first journeyed to Philadelphia to probe Salandria for insights and perspective…

But before starting my new job, I returned to Philadelphia to draw upon Salandria’s vast knowledge of the evidence and get his opinion about the most fruitful areas of investigation. Salandria was most cordial, and we spent a long winter Sunday talking. Yet I sensed a certain balking in his attitude, a feeling of disappointment in what I was about to begin. Eventually, he explained why he was no longer actively involved in pursuing an investigation of the assassination. It gave me a surprising insight into how far Salandria’s thinking had evolved.

“I’m afraid we were misled,” Salandria said sadly. “All the critics, myself included, were misled very early. I see that now. We spent too much time and effort microanalyzing the details of the assassination when all the time it was obvious, it was blatantly obvious that it was a conspiracy. Don’t you think the men who killed Kennedy had the means to do it in the most sophisticated and subtle way? They chose not to. Instead, they picked the shooting gallery that was Dealey Plaza and did it in the most barbarous and openly arrogant manner. The cover story was transparent and designed not to hold, to fall apart at the slightest scrutiny. The forces that killed Kennedy wanted the message clear: ‘We are in control and no one — not the President, not Congress, nor any elected official — no one can do anything about it.’ It was a message to the people that their Government was powerless. And the people eventually got the message. Consider what happened since the Kennedy assassination. People see government today as unresponsive to their needs, yet the budget and power of the military and intelligence establishment have increased tremendously.

“The tyranny of power is here. Current events tell us that those who killed Kennedy can only perpetuate their power by promoting social upheaval both at home and abroad. And that will lead not to revolution but repression. I suggest to you, my friend, that the interests of those who killed Kennedy now transcend national boundaries and national priorities. No doubt we are dealing now with an international conspiracy. We must face the fact — not waste any more time microanalyzing the evidence. That’s exactly what they want us to do. They have kept us busy for so long. And I will bet, buddy, that is what will happen to you. They’ll keep you very, very busy and eventually, they’ll wear you down.”

The planes were:

Boston to LA (x2)

Washington DC to LA

Newark to San Fransisco

While a few English people might point to the fact that these were domestic flights we are not, of course, talking about Stansead to Manchester or even Gatwick to Edinburgh.

These planes were flying from East USA to West USA and had large fuel reserves. It is quite likely the hijackers picked planes such as these for that purpose.

Edo,

What you quoted is utter crap.

Besides we’re not talking about JFK. We’re talking about 9/11.

I think Edo’s post above is very insightful and explains why whoever murdered Dr David Kelly did such a bad job at making it look like suicide. They want people who might be tempted to blow the whistle on dark Goverment secrets to know that it could happen to them.

Maybe it also explains why Barak Obama has adopted the right wing corporatist agenda of the Bush administration, he knows that he can be whacked if he disappoints the oligarchs and it all will be explained as the action of a lone member of the KKK.

Thank you angrysoba. From you I’ll take that as a compliment. Those who understand the jist of the quote know exactly why I posted it.

Glenn, once again you twist around the fact for your own purposes.

Why do you always seem to rely on hearsay upon hearsay? Why don’t you just go to the source?

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0409041pdb1.html

Yes, a hijacking was discussed. To gain the release of the blind sheik. You don’t gain the release of the blind sheik by immediately destroying the plane.

If you read the second page of that memo (highly unlikely, of course), you will see that the FBI and the CIA were taking action. No plea for more resources.

If you want to talk about JFK, first read this:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

Then find a forum to dicuss it. (Or, perhaps ask Craig if he will make a post on it).

I hope to make a post on JFK at some point on my blog. But I haven’t even craked open Vincent Bugliosi’s tome yet.

“Thank you angrysoba. From you I’ll take that as a compliment. Those who understand the jist of the quote know exactly why I posted it.”

In other words you’re being willfully obscure and think that by not explaining what you mean makes you very profound.

Great! Welcome to World of the Strange…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wS7XfsT0bxw

“In other words you’re being willfully obscure and think that by not explaining what you mean makes you very profound.”

I know exactly what Edo means. And no, I’m not going to spell it out for you.

Frank,

What’s your response to the fact that the verinage demolition technique exists?

Do you even have a response?

Should the French and Belgians immediately stop using such a technique because the demolition will stop midway?

“Maybe it also explains why Barak Obama has adopted the right wing corporatist agenda of the Bush administration, he knows that he can be whacked if he disappoints the oligarchs and it all will be explained as the action of a lone member of the KKK. ”

This is rubbish! Barack Obama has had to become more mainstream for the same reasons that Clinton had to become more mainstream. Not because he was scared of being whacked but because of simple political expediency.

When JFK was assassinated, his successor turned out to be one of the most liberal, big-spending civil-rights endorsing presidents that the United States has ever had. He was an uber-Kennedy which commpletely undercuts the nonsense that the “Deep-state” had JFK whacked.

And if someone does take a shot at the President, it will likely believe some right-wing nutter screaming about FEMA camps and telling everyone to google building 7.

Frank,

By the way, you forgot about all the jet fuel. Don’t you think that should be a factor? Do you know how much energy was contained in the fuel?

In any event, you’ll always be able to point out a demolition gone wrong, which means that ninja warriors entered the World Trade Center prior to Sept. 11.

Apparently placing squibs by the windows. No reason, really. Just because.

But wouldn’t all those folks with windowed offices at some point notice the ninja warriors placing squibs?

Larry, this is for you:

http://angrysoba.blogspot.com/2010/01/silly-goose-tony-gosling-on-77-bombings.html

Angrysoba,

I have some relevant personal experience with the Towers – I closed two deals down there. Dozens and dozens of lawyers and even more support staff running around – that kind of thing. Well into the night. I slept for a few hours on a couch in a conference room. Not at night, but in the day, as I had been up all night.

I was also smoking like a chimney back then, and it caused some real problems for me. In any other building, I could just zip down, have a quick smoke, and zip right back up without anyone noticing if I did it right. At the WTC, that was not possible. Besides the two elevator banks, I also had to deal with WTC security every time. So if I went down to have a smoke (which was sadly unavoidable), I had to make sure that a support person at our hosting law firm would take a call from security to let me back up. In other words, every time I went back in, I had to go through the same procedure as an entirely new entrant.

In Truther world, such procedures didn’t exist, or the bomb teams were also ninja warriors, or something else inspired by the movies, or whatever.

Larry,

I don’t have so much experience but when I was about thirteen or fourteen I went to New York and went up to the top of one of the Twin Towers.

On the same trip I went to Washington D.C as my uncle was serving there as a liason officer in the British army. This was the first time I ever heard about the war of 1812 and remember being amused to hear that us Limeys beat the Americans in a war.

I can’t remember much about my trip to the Twin Towers. I can’t even remember how long it took to go up in the elevator.

I think I may have said, “Look at all those people down there! They look like ants!”

And my dad saying, “They are ants, we haven’t gone up the elevator yet!”

Talking about Ninja warriors:

“Councillor Yukihisa Fujita provided a stunning presentation to the National Diet of Japan. Now Asahi Weekly (circulation 268,000) has just published a four-page article with the headline “9/11, Terror in NYC ?” American Architects Group Demands Reinvestigation!”

In provocative contrast with the United States, whose major media outlets and legislative body won’t touch the issue with a 30-foot steel column, Japan is now asking serious questions about how exactly the World Trade Center buildings were destroyed, and who was responsible for the attacks. And who can blame them? Twenty-four innocent citizens of Japan were killed in the terrorist atrocity of 9/11, and their deaths (together with the deaths of the citizens of more than ninety countries who perished on 9/11) pose real questions that require real answers.

“Asahi” means “morning sun” in Japanese. That the Asahi Shimbun (the national newspaper with a daily circulation of over eight million ?” making it one of the largest newspapers on our planet).”

http://tinyurl.com/ninja-warrior

Angrysoba,

Yeah, it was you and those damn Canadians. And you burned the capitol! The capitol!

(I’ll let you handle what few Japanese folks are asking questions about the WTC. I betcha not many more than were in that sarin gas cult.)

The verinage demolition technique involves, simply, detatching a buildings vertical supports from their supported structures by forcing them out of position lateraly.

Proposing something similar could have occured in each of the WTC towers rapid collapses, would immediately be unusual since there is no reference to such an effect in any of the official reports.

Basicaly, if the steel cores of the towers were strong and rigid enough to have carried enough laterial force, from the impact site to their fixings at lower floors, they would certainly have the strength to remain sticking up in the sky after a resulting collapse of the rest of the structure.

Edo,

The Vincent Salandria quote was great:

“Salandria said sadly. “All the critics, myself included, were misled very early. I see that now. We spent too much time and effort microanalyzing the details of the assassination when all the time it was obvious, it was blatantly obvious that it was a conspiracy. Don’t you think the men who killed Kennedy had the means to do it in the most sophisticated and subtle way? They chose not to. Instead, they picked the shooting gallery that was Dealey Plaza and did it in the most barbarous and openly arrogant manner. The cover story was transparent and designed not to hold, to fall apart at the slightest scrutiny. The forces that killed Kennedy wanted the message clear: ‘We are in control and no one — not the President, not Congress, nor any elected official — no one can do anything about it.’ It was a message to the people that their Government was powerless. And the people eventually got the message.”

- That was the message I got when i watched the room full of assorted reporters watching a video of a man who was claimed to be OBL yet looked nothing like OBL, all act as they couldnt really see the difference.

Great posts from Vronsky and others too.

AngrySoba,

You could confuse your understanding of newtonian mechanics even more, if you could upgrade your bowling ball to a car battery, and sheets of paper to cobwebs

Clark – I really appreciate the fourmilab and noosphere links last night thanks, im going to let myself be distracted

Mark Golding,

This is garbage. Almost no one in Japan believes that 9/11 was an inside job.

There’s a woman called Yumi Kikuchi who believes in UFOs and that John Lennon was killed by the CIA who also advises Yukihisa Fujita that 9/11 was an inside job. Between them they also managed to get Richard Gage to come to Japan and have a slideshow. I met Gage twice while he was here and Yumi Kikuchi too.

A while back there was a left-wing newspaper called the jinmin shinbun (People’s Newspaper) that believed that 9/11 was an inside job which hosted David Ray Griffin in a debate. But Griffin was so completely demolished in the debate that the editors of the paper, who had previously supported Griffin, realized he was full of shit and dropped their endorsement of him.

William Rodriguez came here too.

There are a few Japanese who are interested in the subject but most of those who I know are debunkers.

There is a university called Tsukuba in which the structural engineering faculty disagrees with the mechanism of collapse that NIST describes but agrees that 19 guys hijacked planes and flew them into buildings.

Good luck with your revolution anyway!

“The verinage demolition technique involves, simply, detatching a buildings vertical supports from their supported structures by forcing them out of position lateraly.

Proposing something similar could have occured in each of the WTC towers rapid collapses, would immediately be unusual since there is no reference to such an effect in any of the official reports.”

So it doesn’t matter that there were visible tilts which show those blocks of ten or more stories came loose at their moorings?

“AngrySoba,

You could confuse your understanding of newtonian mechanics even more, if you could upgrade your bowling ball to a car battery, and sheets of paper to cobwebs ”

Who cares?

If you know what happened to the Towers that aren’t described in reputable engineering journals then how about you write a report explaining exactly what happened to those towers or finding someone who can and then submit them to such publications?

I mean, I know your level of physics and engineering would allow you to do that, right?

Or is there some international conspiracy that will prevent you even getting your work published by Pyongyang University Press?

Mark,

One more thing.

You know the Mormons?

Let’s say that this year they convince 1 million Japanese people to be Mormoms. Won’t remotely happen of course, but let’s just say.

1 million more Japanese people believing in the Mormon myth does not in any way increase the likelihood that Jesus traveled from the Levant to America in a wooden submarine.

You understand that, right?

That being said, Mark Golding, Steven Jones does believe that Jesus came here on a submarine. And he believes that he can prove it, just like he believes thermite was planted in the Towers.

“”Asahi” means “morning sun” in Japanese. That the Asahi Shimbun (the national newspaper with a daily circulation of over eight million ?” making it one of the largest newspapers on our planet).”"

So what?

Hang on a minute…

“AngrySoba,

You could confuse your understanding of newtonian mechanics even more, if you could upgrade your bowling ball to a car battery, and sheets of paper to cobwebs ”

How does Newtonian mechanics change depending on whether we’re talking about bowling balls or car batteries?

You Truthers are so full of shit! Who the fuck do you think you impress? Your own narcissistic selves?

Edo: Excellent quote from Vincent Salandria, and that is precisely the point. There’ll be plenty

of people who’ll call you a “conspiracy loon” should you postulate that JFK (or Robert Kennedy,

or Dr. King) was not killed by a lone nut. The True believer will stand back with hands on hips,

demanding you prove (to their satisfaction) exactly who did the assassination and how, and

call you all sorts of names, and scoff and snicker all the while.

Likewise, I get asked (here) to explain precisely how the WTC buildings were demolished, and

what happened to the real plane (and passengers) if it didn’t hit the Pentagon.

Instead of playing silly games, I need only reply that the Official Story is entirely unbelievable,

so the Official Story clearly needs a lot of work. It’s not my onus to prove an alternative

theory if I doubt theirs. Indeed, anyone who accepts the testimony of Bush and his

henchmen as being the untrammeled truth has a level of credulity of which a Scientologist

could only dream.

I think this thread has proved very well that – far from the raving “loons” the True Believers

would have us 9/11 sceptics portrayed – we simply have a lot of very good questions and

observations that cannot be brushed off with hand-waving explanations and insults.

What “testimony of Bush”?

Glenn -

Look at this picture of the ValuJet crash and tell me where the plane is:

http://www.cnn.com/EVENTS/1996/year.in.review/us/valujet/valujet.html

You’ve brought up exactly no good questions, Glenn. You’ve brought up the same stupid crap from 2004.

I did find it fun that the squibs were resurrected.

“I think this thread has proved very well that – far from the raving “loons” the True Believers

would have us 9/11 sceptics portrayed – we simply have a lot of very good questions and

observations that cannot be brushed off with hand-waving explanations and insults. ”

Glenn, all you do is ask a few questions. Ignore the answers and then say that you not listening to, or understanding the answers means you are correct.

Question 1.

Do you believe WTC1 and WTC2 and WTC7 were brought down by controlled demolitions?

To buy their version of events, all Angrysoba et al need to explain is how come newtonian mechanics went AWOL in NY on 9/11. Until then I’m with Glenn 100%

Nikko,

99.9% of the structural engineers of the world disagree with you. Perhaps you think your understanding of structural engineering is superior.

Don’t forget that such people learned a great deal about buildings on 911, as they always learn when buildings collapse.

But I imagine that 99.9% of the structural engineers of the world could never convince you on the sufficiency of the airplane strikes in collapsing the Towers.

“To buy their version of events, all Angrysoba et al need to explain is how come newtonian mechanics went AWOL in NY on 9/11.”

Would you like to expand on that? Give me some useful figures and explain to me why no one has used such simple understanding of Newtonian mechanics to write a paper on the destruction of the Towers.

I don’t know about you Larry, but I am getting the distinct impression that Truthers are a bunch of liars or bullshitters.

Larry

please quote the source of your statement that “99.9% of the structural engineers of the world disagree…”. Until I see that and their reasoning I’ll continue to believe that the official version of events does not stack up.

The count so far, out of 344 posts

62 posts from Soba

54 posts from Larry

And I thought I was overdoing it with 14!

Quantity is no substitute for quality, fellows

“Would you like to expand on that? Give me some useful figures and explain to me why no one has used such simple understanding of Newtonian mechanics to write a paper on the destruction of the Towers”

It is not necessary to provide an alternative theory for the collapse to disprove the official version.

“I don’t know about you Larry, but I am getting the distinct impression that Truthers are a bunch of liars or bullshitters.”

Is this the best you can do for a convincing argument?

Angrysoba – you see? They just change the subject!

Their movement is dead. The anti-war movement rejected them from the beginning.

“Is this the best you can do for a convincing argument?”

You and the rest are lying sacks of shit!

Explain how the towers came down!

“The count so far, out of 344 posts

62 posts from Soba

54 posts from Larry

And I thought I was overdoing it with 14!

Quantity is no substitute for quality, fellows ”

Glenn, do you believe the Towers were brought down in a controlled demolition?

“It is not necessary to provide an alternative theory for the collapse to disprove the official version.”

Angrysoba, I’ve encountered this silly statement here more than anywhere else.

Just a thought – perhaps the Holocaust deniers have made more of an impact in this context. After all, that is one of the Holocaust deniers’ favorite things to say.

“Just a thought – perhaps the Holocaust deniers have made more of an impact in this context. After all, that is one of the Holocaust deniers’ favorite things to say.”

Holocaust deniers tend to focus in on weird and obscure details such as how a door might close. Truthers do something similar.

BUT Truthers claim that the Towers COULD NOT have come down in the way they did without explosives.

Amazingly there are thousands and thousands of people all over the Internet who know that fact and yet there is not one of them who know enough to have written a paper explaining it and able to get it published in an engineering journal.

Why not?

Soba wrote “do you believe the Towers were brought down in a controlled demolition?”

Well of course – things like that wouldn’t just demolish themselves!

“Well of course – things like that wouldn’t just demolish themselves!”

What demolished the buildings?

TNT?

Thermite?

Nanothermite?

Could you at least give us all a hint and explain where you have been for the last nine years?

Glenn, you do it very well but its already been covered.

http://preview.tinyurl.com/ygsq7bo

Plausible theories

* distributed explosives

* thermobaric devices

* thermite preparations

Larry&Soba

There has been an intellegent 911 discussion on craigmurray.org.uk besides your worst efforts.

All you two eegits can do about it now is try and relieve yourselves at the end of it, with your characteristic pram rattling, inane whataboutery and randiforum linkages. Who wants or needs to repond to your sorry charade? Ambassadors for sense and sanity?? The rest of us can all actualy agree to disagree. Have a look at how ‘loons get on – read your own posts!

Hey Soba… you ask why someone wouldn’t be able to publish a paper

which hypothesised an explanation of why the towers came down.

The answer, of course, is that to do so would not be good for the career

of the editor who accepted such a paper. Because that editor would be

very heavily leaned on.

Not wishing to change subject, but you must know full well that self-

censorship takes place all the time on all matter of issues, from Palestine

to US-trained deathsquads. I recall reading a journalist saying that if

we were to write an article critical of Israel, he might as well clear his

desk the moment it was submitted. Same has happened with people

that want to speak out on the events of 911 – academics and engineers

have been dismissed.

What is more curious is why engineers and architects are not filling the

pages of their respective magazines, urgently figuring out how to

retrofit all existing steel framed buildings, and why safety codes have

not demanded that nobody occupies them until doing so.

Then again, here’s a building nobody commented on earlier which

burned rather well without collapsing, the Mandarin Oriental Hotel:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3B1OnhSucP8

You can tell the heat from the colour of the flames, and they were no

less hot than fires in the WTC buildings.

“Hey Soba… you ask why someone wouldn’t be able to publish a paper

which hypothesised an explanation of why the towers came down.

The answer, of course, is that to do so would not be good for the career

of the editor who accepted such a paper. Because that editor would be

very heavily leaned on.”

Don’t be ridiculous! You’ve been reading too many US isolationist/survivalist sites and come to the conclusion that if you can’t work in Buttfuck Alabama you can’t work nowhere!

Don’t be silly. I asked YOU! YOU! YOU! and all the other anonymous brilliant minds to explain how those towers were destroyed and none of you Truthers can explain it because you’re all liars, charlatans and fantasists.

Why can’t you get a paper published in Japan? China? North Korea? Iran? France?

Because you are sucking on the stupid pipe that Alex jones fed to you.

Larry,

Do you specialize in Chapter 11 bankruptcy – how come you got so much time to spend here? Are you a paid distraction or just a flag waver.

I was goin to say ‘with respect’ but of course if someone throws you a bundle to talk shit – who needs respect.

Why do you keep bringing up Chapter 11? I don’t get it.

Glenn,

You and the other Truthers are just a bunch of liars and fantasists.

Deep down I am sure you know it.

Always an excuse about why you and all the other supercilious eggheads can’t get their papers published.

Why don’t you just admit that you are a liar and you don’t know what you are talking about. Just like MJ and Tim Groves.

You say that you know more about physics and structural engineering than the experts and yet none of you have ever written a paper on the subject and none of you ever will because none of you have any idea what you are talking about.

You’re a bunch of fantasy dissidents. Like David Ray Griffin.

“Why can’t you get a paper published in Japan? China? North Korea? Iran? France?”

Plus, there’s another venue.

It’s used by other silly 911 nuts to disseminate their so-called “peer reviewed” papers.

If it’s good work (relative to other truther scholarship, that’s not too difficult), truthers would love to disseminate it.

Here’s the other venue.

It has a name.

Here it is.

The Internet

And you ask Glenn simple questions and he can’t answer them because he’s afraid to.

Larry,

Well you wouldn’t get it as a 2 bit lawyer – as demonstrated by your shit posts – I ask again – are you being paid to chat shit here? simple yes/no.

“What is more curious is why engineers and architects are not filling the

pages of their respective magazines, urgently figuring out how to

retrofit all existing steel framed buildings, and why safety codes have

not demanded that nobody occupies them until doing so.”

I have to admit – that one is original!!!!!!!!!!!

Listen here – the idea is to get terrorists to not fly into buildings in the first place. Regardless of whether a building is completely demolished, it’s still a bad thing to have a plane fly into it. Yet, you would expect all buildings to go through the cost and non-use for being able to withstand thousands of gallons of jet fuel pouring into their veins (not to mention the plane impacts).

This argument actually goes the other way – why the fuck do you think they put fireproofing on steel columns? Should they stop doing that?

crab: Thanks, and you’re right.

(very) Angrysoba: Calm down, mate, you’re going to fret yourself into an early grave.

You’ve got the entire government behind you, the established MSN, most people don’t

give a toss anyway, and I’m nobody at all writing on a free blog-space Craig Murray

has kindly provided.

So why are you go angry? What are you so concerned about, just because somebody,

somewhere doesn’t agree with you?

And you’ve come nowhere near answering my post on inertia (January 28, 2010 11:05PM),

apart from bringing up some utter silliness about bowling balls and paper.

As to me, this is why I’m sometimes angry:

1. I had one friend and one acquaintance die in the Towers. They found my friend’s head some weeks later in the pile.

2. I have friends in the FDNY.

3. 911 troof doesn’t bother me in the States, but it bothers me when I travel. I have family in Europe. Since I’m American, people want to bring this up all the time. And it’s the same rehashing of silly claims.

4. I hate lies, and I hate arrogant douchebags.

5. 911 troof only contributes to problems between the West and Islam.

“Well you wouldn’t get it as a 2 bit lawyer – as demonstrated by your shit posts – I ask again – are you being paid to chat shit here? simple yes/no.”

Who the fuck is paying you?

“I ask again – are you being paid to chat shit here? simple yes/no.”

What would whether I practice in the area of corporate bankruptcy have to do with whether I’m getting paid to chat here? You’re not making any sense, and I’m sure you’re fellow truthers would agree.

Larry,

As I thought – silence and emotional crap.

FDNY have suffered lung and other problems, what do you care – have you represented any for compensation? again yes/no is all I need

“And you’ve come nowhere near answering my post on inertia (January 28, 2010 11:05PM),

apart from bringing up some utter silliness about bowling balls and paper.”

That’s because you don’t even know what you are talking about.

Now, you say that engineers and physicists are too scared to lose their day jobs by writing a paper on how the twin towers came down (they might get leaned on). Yet, someone like you who is much braver than those pussies and also has the requisite knowledge about physics still won’t publish a paper.

I have to wonder why…

“FDNY have suffered lung and other problems, what do you care – have you represented any for compensation? again yes/no is all I need”

Mark, there are many conspiracy theorists who have implicated the FDNY. Those people, such as Alex Jones, are scum.

“FDNY have suffered lung and other problems, what do you care – have you represented any for compensation? again yes/no is all I need”

it would be a bit difficult for me to represent a member of the FDNY from my current location in the Midwest, wouldn’t it?

are you under the impression that they are not getting the proper legal help?

Hey Larry mate,

“I have friends in the FDNY.” yeh and I’ve got friends in Iraq – wot u done to help your friends Larry eh? Oh chapter 11? Being paid?

Hey Soba… you didn’t answer my post on inertia (apart from to come up with that tripe

about bowling balls) because I don’t know what I’m talking about, eh?

That’s fine – just please refer me to any point in that post which is factually incorrect.

And no weasling with the likes of “It all is! … phhhttt… phhhttt “, please.

Larry,

While you ponder, I’m some place else.

Larry,

I know I was pretty hard on you early this morning (in my time zone), so I want you to know that I’m sincerely sorry about your friend and your aquaintance that you lost on 911.

I had speculated that you might have lost someone that day. I can understand now why this matters so much to you.

I consider your post at January 29, 2010 8:20 PM to be the most serious things you’ve written about 911.

I wish you well.

Mark,

“wot u done to help your friends Larry eh? Oh chapter 11? Being paid?”

Please please tell me what corporate bankruptcy has to do with 911, me posting here, the FDNY, Craig Murray, JFK, the Joooos, anything.

Larry,

911 is a hard thing to argue about – hard on the emotions, I mean, because it was such an extreme event. Ironically, that makes it very EASY to get involved in arguing about it, but (and because) it fires the emotions.

Larry,

you may find it easier to cope with “Truthers” if you consider that their obsession with pushing certain ideas is their reaction to the extremity of that event, too.

I think that us humans don’t really cope with emotional extremity very well. Events like this are (thank goodness) situations that we don’t get much practice with.

Clark: You don’t actually believe the soab when he says

“1. I had one friend and one acquaintance die in the Towers. They found my friend’s head some

weeks later in the pile.”

That’s a steaming crock. I’ll stick my neck out here, and say Larry is lying his miserable arse

off. Perhaps he could post some reference to any find of detached heads, and the chances

of “a mate” of his being found this way are approximating zero.

ok, Larry, I’ll give you a fulsome apology if you prove me wrong. What was the name of this

mate of yours? Let’s have one of your legendary rapid responses, and we can look up to see

whether his head was indeed found.

Glenn,

you just can’t do that. Think. If it’s true, then what you’re asking is incredibly insensitive. If it’s false, then telling a lie like that is a matter for Larry’s conscience alone – it’ll catch up with him.

Remember Glenn, Larry is in the ‘States – he’s more closely connected to 911 than me – I’m assuming you’re in the UK.

But yes, I do believe him, because the other four points make a lot of sense, too.

The values surrounding 911 are more important than the physics. And my physics is pretty good, it was my best subject.

Jaded:

Ok, we are nearing the end of the game and the shills have been completely overrun by the brills. It has now turned into a rout and the shills have no hope coming back from 6-1 down in the last few minutes. I will soon have to put them out of their misery and blow the final whistle. Nice try though lads. It’s the taking part that counts…

Glenn, I refuse to be offended.

I once made the mistake of telling truthers about my friend, which is why I rarely do it now. They asked for his name, and I made the mistake of telling them his name. They were already convinced that I was a secret agent man, so they went back to confirm that my friend had existed …. in any event, that exchanged left a bad taste in my mouth. And I can’t be sure that those truther assholes did not violate the privacy of my friend’s family.

“and the chances

of “a mate” of his being found this way are approximating zero.”

Remains of individuals were found months after the event.

Strange that human remains were found and one of the hijackers passport, but not the aircraft black boxes

Nikko:

More on the black boxes:

http://911myths.com/index.php/The_Black_Boxes

This sobering exchange brings it back to what is important: people’s lives. Families destroyed by war, whether it be in the USA, Iraq, Palestine, the UK or Israel. We have Larry’s terrible and moving story of his friend’s death, we have Mark Golding’s shocking, gut-wrenching pictures of burned and maimed children in Iraq and this brings back my own memories of the aftermath of Lockerbie, during which I assisted with some of the post-mortems (in the curling-rink), it was horrifying, surreal. Someday, I may write in detail about it, but to be frank, beyond a mention like this, I never have, not even sublimated in my fiction, perhaps because there is a certain respect for the dead and I wouldn’t want to be seen (by myself) to be exploiting them in some way. Whatever our views of who did what, I think it is important that anyone who cares about people all should try and work for peace. This may sound woolly, but as has been proven, it is the most difficult path of all, and is the one which requires oceans of stamina. It does not exclude – and indeed, must include – striving for justice – but not vengeance. Vengeance gets us nowhere.

I was referring to Larry’s post of 1040pm in my last post, of course. Steelback’s irruption is unwarranted and strikes me as being motivated by someone who wants to bring down the site. I have no idea what the link s/he posts is about but the title sounds abhorrent and a kind of poison-trap. I speak as an anti-Zionist, btw.

Larry

talk was of the towers – thanks for confirming that black boxes were not found there

Nikko, the lack of black boxes does not even rise to the level of an anomaly. Did you happen to notice the big fires and the towers falling?

That’s right folks – Craig Murray is officially part of the conspiracy!!!!!

(and I do find it funny that other truthers feel that their trutherism is superior to the trutherism of people like Steelback)

Larry, if human remains can be found then certainly a steel box designed to survive an impact. You need to make your mind up what you believe

Suhayl Saadi,

thank you for the peace you bring.

This has all turned to shit.

Nikko, so what are you saying? That they found the black boxes and then hid them? Why would your Men in Black do this? Why would it be necessary to do this to support the conspiracy?

And Nikko, it really depends on where things were when the fire and collapse happened, doesn’t it?

Goodnight.

That pretty much draws this chapter to an end. Soba – and you other True believers – you

said you’d already posted some strong stuff for your case, but nobody replied to it in other

threads. Very possibly, because the “debate” got drawn out a long time over many posts.

But we’re here now.

I take it you concede the – modesty aside – concluding point about inertia. You’ve had all

day and made dozens of posts but done nothing to even suggest a flaw in my argument of

January 28, 2010 11:05 PM. That means your favoured theory (i.e. believing the

government 100%) cannot hold. Squealing about my lack of published papers does

not counter that fact.

What it comes down to at the end of the day, is that you really believe that 19 Magic Arabs

managed to pull off this tremendous feat, even suspending the laws of physics for a day,

getting every law of man and nature on their side, and bring the mightiest nation in

history to its knees. And you’re very angry with anyone who doesn’t share your rather

staggering credulity.

Yes indeed, 19 Magic Arabs can do such a thing. But secret services? Some dark, stealthy

group operating on behalf of the monied interests, the Powers That Be, a rogue squad?

Why, how absolutely preposterous! Such a thing could never happen. Magic Arabs can

do _anything_, as we know full well. But how could any internal arm of the real power

of society be even conceived as having done _the exact same thing_ ? Of course our

agencies couldn’t have done it – we don’t have caves in Afghanistan from whence such

fiendishly diabolical plots can be forged, just for starters.

I mean… these vast interests wanted a new Pearl Harbour (viz, PNAC), wanted an

excuse for war, wanted a shift towards control through fear, even wrote and published

their requirements, but – nah! – that’s just impossible in sobaworld. Only crazed non-

practicing Muslims could do that. Because they are Magic, you see.

Couple of hundred thousand bucks, and Magic Arabs can fly like angels, fight like

daemons, navigate like homing pigeons, and die like hero warriors. Even if they can’t

stay off the sleaze, booze, pork and women, and keep their heads down just before

their most important mission ever just days before.

But the idea that _we_ could engineer the same… don’t make me laugh! Not at any price!

*

This is the thread for 9/11, so please – Soba etc. – bring your strongest stuff on here

if you feel aggrieved that something dead good went unanswered.

If you ever have a killer point, I’d concede it. The rest of you ask “what would it take

to convince you [that the government is telling the whole truth]“. I might ask in return,

since you bring it up, what would give you pause before believing every last word the

government tells you like the Good Germans that you obviously are?

Suhayl – “[working for peace] may sound woolly, but as has been proven, it is the most difficult path of all”

Did you ever hear of General Rondon, of Brazil ? Rhetorical question, I want to tell it even if you do.

Story seems to be (I don’t know a whole lot about it, but so far as I can make out …), 100-ish years ago, Brazil was using its army to build communications infrastructure, telegraph lines etc, and they sent him off into the unknown Amazon headwaters to do that. Full of unknown numbers of people of an unknown number of unknown tribes of unknown locals. So they gave him an army, to do it with. And he gave them a standing order, to the effect of “these people won’t have a clue who you are, or what to do about it. And we don’t know what they might do about that. You may *not* kill them. If necessary, you must allow them to kill you, before you hurt them”.

I think, over a hundred of his people did get killed, in the course of their getting to know each other.

And it made him a national hero, and the Brazilian state invented the post of Marshal in order to award it to him, and that area is now called Rondonia.

(I rather fear that not everybody that came afterwards shared such attitudes).

I can’t find a whole lot about it. I guess there could be a lot more if I read Portuguese.

Clark – “you just can’t do that.”

Agree. He says something real, and this reaction isn’t going to encourage him to do it again, or make him glad he gave the other stuff a rest.

This is an unexpectedly interesting thread. But it’s still got a way to go to catch up with “What We Did On Craig’s Holidays”.

Suhayl – “Steelback’s irruption is unwarranted and strikes me as being motivated by someone who wants to bring down the site. I have no idea what the link s/he posts is about”

But, hey, if it tells other likeminded people not to come here, that doesn’t sound bad to me.

“Even if they can’t

stay off the sleaze, booze, pork and women, and keep their heads down just before

their most important mission ever just days before.”

Glenn, OK, so you believe that lie as well.

You’ll believe any lie as long as it fits with your conclusion.

“19 Magic Arabs”

Prior to Sept. 11, standard practice was for airline crews and hostages to stay quiet. There’s all sorts of evidence of that. However, we know how passengers changed their minds when they found out the planes were to be used as missiles rather than negotiating tools. The passengers rammed the cockpit.

Glenn,

PNAC discussed a “new Pearl Harbor” within the context of rebuilding America’s defenses. It had nothing to do with invading other countries. And they released that document, didn’t they? They weren’t hiding it, so it wasn’t some super-secret plot that only you, James Bond 007, could find out.

Glenn, I’m starting to believe that you can’t read. You’ve had years and years to read that PNAC document. Are you able to understand what it says by reading the words? It should be easy.

Three star “larry” alert! Interesting post made recently!

Glenn:

1. The silly 911 truth movement has failed. The very vibrant anti-war movement wants nothing to do with you; they find you’re quite silly fantasists, and that you distract from the anti-war message. Even Craig Murray doesn’t back you up. Noam Chomsky is sick of your silliness.

2. Every single one of your claims was invented and pushed by the American right wing. Is this something you’re proud of?

Glenn, look at this picture of the ValuJet crash – WHERE IS THE PLANE! OH NO! CONSPIRACY!

http://www.cnn.com/EVENTS/1996/year.in.review/us/valujet/valujet.html

Angrysoba,

Going out getting drunk on a Friday evening and then crawling back to the keyboard in the small hours to talk dirty to strangers on the internet ?” aren’t you ashamed?

I stopped arguing with you before because I couldn’t put up with the spite that all to often weaves its way into you comments. You say it comes from frustration and you excuse it on those grounds. I implore you to get it under control while you are still young because if you go on like this it will come dominate your character in time.

“Except they don’t appear to be controlled demolitions because we didn’t hear any detonations of explosives. Or see any flashes of explosives. Nor has any controlled demolition I have ever seen look like the Twin Towers collapses.”

Have you considered that there has never been any controlled demolition like what took place at the Twin Towers? They were singular structures and they may have been knocked down by a unique method. IF IT WAS A DEMOLITION, then most of the big explosives and incendiaries would have gone off in the central core area in and around the elevator shafts, which is why they wouldn’t have been visible from outside.

You are quite wrong to say that “‘we’ didn’t hear any detonations of explosives” unless you are referring to the royal ‘we’ of you and Larry. I saw and heard some on video, and quite a lot of eye-witnesses reported seeing and hearing them. There’s a big difference between “not many” and “none at all”. Even a dozen flashes low down the towers in the seconds before and at the onset of the collapse is a dozen more than your hypothesis calls for.

“As far as I know this is the scientific method in operation. You find some initial facts. Develop a hypothesis and then test it. The hypothesis must be capable of being falsified. If not it is impossible to test because testing can only confirm the hypothesis making it meaningless.

NIST only gave the explanation for collapse initiation, which was all it was tasked to do.

It seems clear that the top stories were no longer connected to the perimeter columns meaning that it was now falling through the floor which, as Leslie Robertson said, couldn’t possibly hold the weight of so many stories.

Once the first floor gave way it fell to the next story, which was unsurprisingly no more able to support the weight of the descending upper stories and so on, down to the ground.”

Unsurprising for you, perhaps, but shocking for almost everyone who watched it live including Peter Jennings and Dan Rather, if I remember correctly. So why didn’t the collapse end with the descending upper stories sitting on a pile of rubble? Please go on. This is fascinating.

“The verinage demolition technique…”

The term is new to me but the principle is straightforward. You linked to a video that shows how it can be used to bring down a building by disloging all the columns on one floor in uinson to initiate a collapse and let gravity do the rest. I linked to another video that shows how even when the basic technique of dislodging all the columns is employed (in the Hackney case they removed all the columns on a two-storey section simultaneously) it doesn’t necessarily work.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but my understanding is htat the verinage technique is not applied to tall steel-frame structures because it would not work on them. Even with intrisically weaker and less robust reinforced concrete structures, verinage collapses slow down after the first jolt as the resistance of the lower structure absorbs the momentum of the decending block faster than gravity can add to it, slowing its progress and eventually bringing it to a stop.

I think that bringing up “verinage” in the context of the WTC collapses is a bit of an own goal for your non-demolition theory because such a collapse would result in an initial jolt (not observed at the WTC) and because such strong steel-framed structures would resist the collapse sufficiently to stop it from proceeding all the way to the bottom.

So in the spirit of chivalry, like helping an adversary get up during a duel when he’s been tripped over by his own shoelaces, I’m going to offer you Ryan Mackey, who knows a thing or two about tension, compression, shear, torque and torsion, not to mention why things fall down and why they don’t.

Tony’s considered opinion is that the WTCs came down without the use of explosives and I think that anyone who wants to argue against that is going to have their work cut out in debunking his ideas. I’m not saying he’s correct, but he is challenging. Sadly, he’s a bit of a JREFeree too, which makes him insufferable and obnoxious at times. But he definitely isn’t boring and he just might be right.

http://www.911myths.com/images/c/c6/Rm_hardfire_szamboti_ann.pdf

Ryan is known for his debunking of Debunking 9/11 Debunking. But he himself has been debunked by another debunking Ryan ?” Kevin Ryan.

ww.journalof911studies.com/letters/b/MackeyLetter.pdf -

And so it goes.

A five-star “larry” alert!

Larry – be useful for a moment, before your function is replaced by someone

more competent. Reference a public document referring to a decapitated

head being found and identified in the wreckage of the Twin Towers.

Perhaps you’re going to tell me that that sort of thing isn’t going to get a

mention even in a local paper, given how much you detest anything

suggesting salacious detail in the US an’ all?

Yet this really happened – a head was found, and it happened it belong to

your personal mate.

Gosh, given your record, why should anyone doubt that for a moment?

Soba: This is the personal you tie yourself to, who just lies, and lies, and lies.

Right. Kevin Ryan. The water tester.

“Reference a public document referring to a decapitated

head being found and identified in the wreckage of the Twin Towers.”

Why would I? It wouldn’t change your mind about anything.

Larry on proof; ” Why would I? It wouldn’t change your mind about anything.”

But Larry… possibly it might make the casual reader think that maybe,

just this one time, that you weren’t completely full of it?

Oh, drat that you always have the perfect excuse to never providing even

a shred of proof! Huh… guess we’ll have to take you at your word then.

Larry,

I too have lost “loved ones” in violent circumstances, but I don’t like to talk about it. We English learn young to keep a stiff upper lip. We don’t show our feelings as freely as you Yanks ?” it’s not the done thing ?” but we do have them. Apart from Angrysoba, that is, but then again he’s got a few pints of Scottish highlander blood in him.

Interesting link to the ValueJet crash.

But I fail to see what precisely is your point?

The plane crashed into a swamp in the Everglades. After several months of effort, 75% of the plane was recovered, and despite the presence of aligators 36 bodies were recovered too.

How does this compare with the UA-93 case? How much of that plane was recovered? How many bodies? How many aligators hindered the search?

Everyone can have hours of fun reading about UA-93, here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125×37066

“I too have lost “loved ones” in violent circumstances, but I don’t like to talk about it. We English learn young to keep a stiff upper lip. We don’t show our feelings as freely as you Yanks ?” it’s not the done thing ?” but we do have them.”

As if I didn’t see that coming. In a previous thread, Clark wondered whether or not I lost someone on Sept. 11. I didn’t respond. Above, Glenn asked angrysoba why he was so angry. I threw in my two cents with a very quick statement. Otherwise, on no thread have I mentioned losing a friend. At another time I did mention it in the company of truthers, but that was also a situation of me being pressed to state why I’m so concerned with 911.

And then I hear the same boring British anti-Americanism. Of course, it’s of the lighter variety, but it’s still ethnic stupidity on your part.

“Why would I? It wouldn’t change your mind about anything.”

Why would you want to change Glenn’s mind about anything?

You brought up the subject of the head, and now you won’t give us a little bit of head info. You’re such a tease.

My point about the ValuJet crash was that anyone can point to pictures of it and say “Where is the plane?” and build a naive conspiracy merely on the lack of pictures. That was in response to Glenn’s anomaly hunting (but then, they’re not anomalies).

Much was recovered of Flight 93. Not as much as the ValuJet crash, but the terrain was entirely different, so it would be quite odd for the recoveries to match exactly.

Tim Groves:

“now you won’t give us a little bit of head info.”

Tim, I think there’s something a bit sick about you.

“And then I hear the same boring British anti-Americanism. Of course, it’s of the lighter variety, but it’s still ethnic stupidity on your part.”

Now you’ve cut me to the quick and wounded my vanity. (Sob!) We bigots have feelings too, you know. “Ethnic stupidity”: That’s a new one for the PC lexicon. I’ll have to remember that and find out under what circumstances I am allowed to use it. Not against Blacks, Hispanics, Muslims or the Irish, obviously, but it should come in very handy for flagellating my fellow non-hyphenated Snow Whiteys.

“That’s a new one for the PC lexicon”

I rather think that, when I describe British anti-Americanism as “ethnic stupidity”, that I’m the one undermining any PC lexicon.

“Tim, I think there’s something a bit sick about you.”

I tend to play “tit for tat”. When people gross me out, I do my best to reciprocate. But if they make nice, I can make nice too.

I see and accept as valid your point about the Valuejet and UA flight 93 crashes. Although I haven’t seen very much of what was recovered of Flight 93 and I would have liked to see what could be picked up of the fuselage put together in a hanger so that the plane could have been indentified clearly enough for all to see, as is usually the case. But in any case I’ve never tried to look deeply at Flight 93.

Now, isn’t it refression to hear somebody say “I accept your point.” You know, in all my years crossing swords with Angrysoba, I don’t think he’s ever done me such a courtesy. Of course, it could be because he’s never been wrong, or more likely because he’s never noticed that he’s been wrong. On the other hand, I could be wrong abut him.

“When people gross me out,”

but I thought you were English and kept a stiff upper lip about such matters.

“I rather think that, when I describe British anti-Americanism as “ethnic stupidity”, that I’m the one undermining any PC lexicon.”

I rather think that part of the problem is that you are playing by a set of culturally constructed and subliminally absorbed and internalized rules that you are assuming to be universals, so that you are apt to get judgemental when people a different culture fail to conform to your rules, which they couldn’t expect to be aware of in the first place by virtue of never having learned them.

But no need to apologize. I do the same thing myself all the time.

That blank one above was me.

“but I thought you were English and kept a stiff upper lip about such matters.”

That’s the big issue, isn’t it? Whether to swallow or spit, or in Angrysoba’s case, barf it out.

“I rather think that part of the problem is that you are playing by a set of culturally constructed and subliminally absorbed and internalized rules that you are assuming to be universals,”

Certain rules are universals. It’s immensely predictable that some people from every tribe will condescend to individuals of other tribes on the basis of perceived tribal superiority. I believe there is ethical value in destroying this impulse; in fact, if all humans gave up on this and other manifestations of early tribalism, we’d all experience greater peace and prosperity.

Tim Groves writes: “[Ryan Mackey] just might be right.”

I accept your point.

Actually, I made a friend request to Tony Szamboti about two or three months ago on JREF and he accepted.

I have watched Mackey and Szamboti on Hardfire and I have to say Ryan Mackey won that exchange.

The point that I keep trying to make and which no Truther seems to accept is that the Towers didn’t simply crush down like a coke can “through the path of least resistance”. The top of the towers had been observed to tilt. This means the mass was not being supported by the supporting columns but going through he floor itself.

They appear on Hardfire, the New York Libertarian TV channel with the rockin’ soundtrack and the fashion guru Ronald Weick!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1u3KO9kUdE

When I heard about 9/11, I picked an argument with a couple of policemen by overtaking them dangerously before swinging in front of them through the gates of the mosque.

A debate ensued. I said, the twin towers couldn’t have been done by Muslims. It wasn’t the mindset of a Muslim to cast aside the fear that Allah might count such an attack as murder.

I was in cloud cuckoo land, was the conclusion of the local bobbies, who were going round in an old LDV checking the local mosques, as it happened. The elder from the mosque agreed with them, firmly.

I do believe that government agencies, including foreign government agencies operating in Western countries, infiltrate groups and incite them to questionable acts. I remain exhilarated by the sheer defiance of 9/11.

I haven’t been on the bad end of the local police as a Muslim in Birmingham, because they are trained to conceal the comprehensive surveillance systems of MI6 in a fog of surface respect.

I try not to speculate about things about which I have no knowledge. Those who know US culture seem to be saying that the 9/11 plot would have unravelled if it had been an inside job. They are assuming that all policemen are the same. In the UK this is not the case.

In our Metropolitan areas, prejudice is strictly concealed and there is a strong liaison between the spooks and the bobbies on the beat. They know where we are coming from and we know where they are coming from. If anybody wants to do something heroic for Islam, they are ready to change it into something heroic for the police and security services.

The rest of the time we carry on taking not notice. Except when they try and fool us they aren’t using technology. They are, and there is absolutely no doubt at all that they knew about 9/11 in the US, if Birmingham is anything to go by. But of course that’s cloud cuckoo land .wink wink.

Yeah, Alex Jones occasionally has someone from his message board start shooting people. I imagine anno will crack when some poor female kafir looks at him the wrong way.

The new Axis of Evil: the British Left / the Muslim Right / the American Right

“The term is new to me but the principle is straightforward. You linked to a video that shows how it can be used to bring down a building by disloging all the columns on one floor in uinson to initiate a collapse and let gravity do the rest. I linked to another video that shows how even when the basic technique of dislodging all the columns is employed (in the Hackney case they removed all the columns on a two-storey section simultaneously) it doesn’t necessarily work”

It doesn’t matter that demolitions don’t necessarily work. The point in my posting of verinage is that they CAN.

I could say that someone getting hit by a speeding car won’t necessarily die but citing examples is not sufficient to prove that someone can’t die if hit by a speeding car.

“I think that bringing up “verinage” in the context of the WTC collapses is a bit of an own goal for your non-demolition theory because such a collapse would result in an initial jolt (not observed at the WTC) and because such strong steel-framed structures would resist the collapse sufficiently to stop it from proceeding all the way to the bottom.”

Where do you get this idea from? The verinage demolitions don’t show such “jolts”. Maybe they do slow down but the collapse of the towers weren’t exactly the same as the examples in the videos.

It is highly impractical to use exact ananlogies with the Twin towers because you would need to build new ones and attempt to inflict the same damage using a plane.

Of course, even if you did Truthers could still claim that it was rebuilt using pre-planted explosives/thermite.

“You are quite wrong to say that “‘we’ didn’t hear any detonations of explosives” unless you are referring to the royal ‘we’ of you and Larry. I saw and heard some on video”

Then you won’t mind re-posting the video of the audible explosions.

“We English learn young to keep a stiff upper lip. We don’t show our feelings as freely as you Yanks ?” it’s not the done thing ?” but we do have them. Apart from Angrysoba, that is, but then again he’s got a few pints of Scottish highlander blood in him.”

Irish actually.

“Irish actually.”

Maybe we can get Tim to chart out for us his understanding of how stiff people keep their upper lip according to tribe (or tribal blood).

Of course, it won’t really work as he’s already stated that my mentioning the recovery of my friend’s head “grossed him out.”

“A debate ensued. I said, the twin towers couldn’t have been done by Muslims. It wasn’t the mindset of a Muslim to cast aside the fear that Allah might count such an attack as murder.”

Well, fine but there are plenty of people who call themselves Muslims who will blow up, for example, crowds of people watching volleyball tournaments.

There are plenty of people who call themselves Christians who will blow up wedding parties.

Your reasoning doesn’t mean that Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed weren’t behind the 9/11 attacks.

Angrysoba: “Once the first floor gave way it fell to the next story, which was unsurprisingly no more able to support the weight of the descending upper stories and so on, down to the ground.”

Tim Groves :”Unsurprising for you, perhaps, but shocking for almost everyone who watched it live including Peter Jennings and Dan Rather, if I remember correctly. So why didn’t the collapse end with the descending upper stories sitting on a pile of rubble? Please go on. This is fascinating.”

It IS unsurprising that the floor below that at which the collapse began wasn’t appreciably stronger than the floor above it.

Do you really think that a floor designed for people to walk on was designed to hold the weight of a ten to fifteen story block of steel and concrete? No? Then it was unsurprising that each successive floor was no less able than the one above it to hold that weight.

I think you’re reading with a broad brush and not taking any time to absorb what I am actually saying and instead responding to what you think or hope I am saying.

Also, the verinage technique shows that the building is NOT left with a big block sitting on a pile of rubble. The upper stories also smash to pieces. You did watch that video, right?

One thing on thermite that has never been explained to me by trooferdom:

Thermite is an incendiary, not an explosive. It is used to destroy horizontal surfaces. That is, a thermite grenade is used to destroy the engine block of a vehicle by pulling the pin and walking away. The super-heated material drips down into the structure to render the structure useless. So … the remnants of thermite reactions would be immediately apparent … we would see splatter patterns and drip patterns. However, we see exactly none. Truthers will find a neatly cut column and claim that that’s evidence of thermite, but that’s exactly the opposite of what thermite does (and, in fact, those cuts were most likely caused by the steelworkers using oxyacetylene torches after the fact).

The thermite claim has always been very weird – but the truth movement started with it, and by golly they don’t seem able to jump off that wagon.

“Have you considered that there has never been any controlled demolition like what took place at the Twin Towers? ”

I agree with you. There has never been a controlled demolition like the one you think happened at the World Trade Center.

Now, how does that help your argument?

Hullo Craig,

As much as I’d like to post my comment here, it’s too late and besides this place is infested with obvious shills here for no other purpose than to make the conversation so disagreeable everyone sensible leaves.

So I slung my comment over at my place where I thought it might amuse the regulars. It’s called ‘Craig Murray’s Mental Horse’. If anyone here wants a read, just click the moniker below. Oh, and it’s got pretty pictures too.

“this place is infested with obvious shills”

*Eyeroll*

Who’s paying you, Nobody?

Ok, the final whistle has been blown and it’s game over for the shills. They tried hard, but despite a lot of huff and puff could make no meaningful penetration. You lost fair and square kiddos. Any after match pitch protests will be frowned upon. Take defeat gracefully.

Just been watching some of that Hardfire episode. Tony Szamboti’s getting a bit angry.

Ronald Weick asks: “Are you saying the explosives were primed to go off at the exact impact sites?”

Szamboti: “No, just above.”

Weick: “But surely the planes would have set off the explosives”

Szamboti: “Now you’re using the argument from incredulity!”

Weick: “But demolition experts say this is absurd!”

Szamboti: “Now you’re using the argument from authority.”

And on and on…

Szamboti DOES admit that there is a problem of no audio evidence. Fortunately Tim is about to rescue him by showing some videos of audible explosions.

“Where do you get this idea from? The verinage demolitions don’t show such “jolts”. Maybe they do slow down but the collapse of the towers weren’t exactly the same as the examples in the videos.”

You never passed your physics O level, did you? Conservation of momentum, etc. When the supports are pulled the upper stories begin falling at an acceleration of about 9.8 metres per second per second. When they hit the lower stories, they transfer some or all of this momentum and so make a rapid deceleration. This is the “jolt”.

I often think that if you would stop trying to prove your conclusion by grabbing at whatever “evidence” appears superficially useful and rejecting anything that doesn’t, and instead took a course in basic physics includng mechanics, materials science and structural engineering, you would make more progress.

“It is highly impractical to use exact ananlogies with the Twin towers because you would need to build new ones and attempt to inflict the same damage using a plane.”

Precisely my point. But if you are going to be picky, WHY DO YOU INSIST ON INFLICTING half-baked INEXACT analogies on us? Why are you allowed to make analogies between the WTC destructions and “verinage” demolitions when we’re not?

“Then you won’t mind re-posting the video of the audible explosions.”

Right after Larry posts documentation and still photos of “the head”.

“Irish actually.”

Sam thing. You’re all denizens of the Celtic fringe. Me too, actually.

“It IS unsurprising that the floor below that at which the collapse began wasn’t appreciably stronger than the floor above it.”

It WAS suprprising that the towers fell at all to most observers. It WAS also surprising that an asymmetric damage and fire pattern led to near similtaneous failure of all the colunms on each floor, and it WAS bloody GOB-SMACKING that the central cores did not resist the collapse enough to slow it to a stop within a few stories.

“Do you really think that a floor designed for people to walk on was designed to hold the weight of a ten to fifteen story block of steel and concrete? No? Then it was unsurprising that each successive floor was no less able than the one above it to hold that weight.”

How did it come about that a floor had such a weight placed on it? Dear Soba, Dear Soba. Were there no Central columns? Was there no interlocking mesh of load-bearing perimiter columns? No large corner columns? No beams linking the whole shebang together transversely? Are you sugggesting that this steel skeleton was not designed to support five or six times the weight above at any point it even in a 100 mph hurricane? If so, give me your own ideas about how much load the structure was designed for and we can all have a good laugh.

“I think you’re reading with a broad brush and not taking any time to absorb what I am actually saying and instead responding to what you think or hope I am saying.”

Then we’re both going to have to be a bit more patient. But really, how do you expect others to make the effort to take you seriously when so many of your comments are abusive and contemptuous of those of us who do not share your views on 9/11? If you think that’s an appropriate manner for dealing with other people is it any wonder they don’t hang on your every word?

“Also, the verinage technique shows that the building is NOT left with a big block sitting on a pile of rubble. The upper stories also smash to pieces. You did watch that video, right?”

Right! But that isn’t always the case with the verinage technique, is it? And when it happens, do you know why it happens?

And the verinage technique is a meticulously planned CONTROLLED DEMOLITION, isn’t it? They have to work out where to PULL the structure in order to make it work, right?

And although it can produce “squib”-like puffs of smoke and debris, with the verinage technique, these are never produced below the collapse front, right?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EY3nj728WPY

So the verinage technique is irrelavent to the discussion of the WTC collapses, right?

So why bring it up?

“I think that bringing up “verinage” in the context of the WTC collapses is a bit of an own goal for your non-demolition theory because such a collapse would result in an initial jolt (not observed at the WTC) and because such strong steel-framed structures would resist the collapse sufficiently to stop it from proceeding all the way to the bottom.

So in the spirit of chivalry, like helping an adversary get up during a duel when he’s been tripped over by his own shoelaces”

Tim, there are a number of points I am covering by showing the videos of the verinage technique. Again, not what you think I am saying but things I have EXPLICITLY said.

One of those is that the buildings being demolished by verinage also exhibit “squibs” and “pyroclastic clouds” as well as the fact that the top of the building can be completely demolished.

All of this shows that explosives ARE NOT NECESSARY to produce the phenomena that are pointed to as incontrovertible evidence of explosives.

“One thing on thermite that has never been explained to me by trooferdom:”

I have no idea if thermite was used at the WTC although I wouldn’t rule it out. You on the other hand have a completely closed mind. I HAVE EXPLAINED to you before (although I don’t count myself as “trooferdom”) that there are all kinds of thermitic materials. But you just don’t get it because you just don’t listen. As Chinese Cultural Atache Ben Ni Hiru used to say, “Why you no risen? You stupid irriot!”

The Jones team claims to have identified Nanothermite in the dust and nobody else has come out to try to disprove their findings yet. But you yourself have debunked the work, and not by falling back on your woodwork and cooking skills or even your philosophy degree, but by farting, burping and casting aspersions at the quality of the scolarship involved ?” a truly revolutionary piece of scholarship. Congratulations!

“Tim, there are a number of points I am covering by showing the videos of the verinage technique. Again, not what you think I am saying but things I have EXPLICITLY said.

One of those is that the buildings being demolished by verinage also exhibit “squibs” and “pyroclastic clouds” as well as the fact that the top of the building can be completely demolished.”

Soba, with verinage the “squibs” are not found several stories below the collapse front. Please check for yourself. Also, you have shown no evidence that the verinage would work on steel-framed skyscrapers, have you?

“All of this shows that explosives ARE NOT NECESSARY to produce the phenomena that are pointed to as incontrovertible evidence of explosives.”

NO! IT BLOODY DOESN’T!!!

But if you can find a steel-framed skyscraper that was demolished by the verinage technique and displayed the phenomena in question, then it would.

BUT SO FAR YOU HAVEN’T, SO IT DOESN’T!

“Precisely my point. But if you are going to be picky, WHY DO YOU INSIST ON INFLICTING half-baked INEXACT analogies on us? Why are you allowed to make analogies between the WTC destructions and “verinage” demolitions when we’re not?”

Where did I say you couldn’t use your own half-baked inexact anaologies?

You can, and you do. I am merely saying that showing a video of a building NOT COLLAPSING is not evidence that the WTC couldn’t have collapsed.

It is necessary for you to discover the impossibility of the Towers collapse not sufficient to show examples of other buildings not collapsing.

“You never passed your physics O level, did you? ”

No, it had been replaced with science GCSEs in my time. I did earn myself that though.

“When the supports are pulled the upper stories begin falling at an acceleration of about 9.8 metres per second per second. When they hit the lower stories, they transfer some or all of this momentum and so make a rapid deceleration. This is the “jolt”.”

Well, then you would need to show some figures and perhaps take your own advice and:

“instead took a course in basic physics includng mechanics, materials science and structural engineering,”

Maybe then you could write a paper on it and get it published in a real journal. If the science is right you would become famous.

“How did it come about that a floor had such a weight placed on it? Dear Soba, Dear Soba”

I believe I have posted videos of this before. The steel lost its integrity and the top column essentially sank into the building. *****Importantly, the top of the building didn’t come down exactly onto the supporting columns but onto the areas not designed to support the weight******

” Were there no Central columns? Was there no interlocking mesh of load-bearing perimiter columns? No large corner columns? No beams linking the whole shebang together transversely?”

Sure there were but they could support the weight at a particular alignment. The load had shifted, as I pointed out above. This is why buildings are built in a parcular way and girders are not haphazardly stacked on top of each other. If they are they could fall down.

“And the verinage technique is a meticulously planned CONTROLLED DEMOLITION, isn’t it? They have to work out where to PULL the structure in order to make it work, right?”

Yeah, I noticed that Tony Szamboti tried that one too. It could have been verinage, he suggests.

“And although it can produce “squib”-like puffs of smoke and debris, with the verinage technique, these are never produced below the collapse front, right?”

I don’t know if they never are. That may well be a good point and I’ll have to check it out.

“So the verinage technique is irrelavent to the discussion of the WTC collapses, right?”

No, it isn’t.

“So why bring it up?”

See above.

“Soba, with verinage the “squibs” are not found several stories below the collapse front. Please check for yourself. Also, you have shown no evidence that the verinage would work on steel-framed skyscrapers, have you?”

No, but I am not saying that the Towers were demolished by verinage. Obviously.

On the jolt, I have said before and I’ll have to say again, the towers did not simply fall down complelely vertically down the strongest perimeter columns.

There was a tilt. This is important because it shows that the load shifted.

Guess what, Ryan Mackey agrees with me.

On this programme from about 5 minutes in Ryan Mackey is explaining this to Tony Szamboti:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDvDND9zNUk&feature=related

Which just goes to show that you don’t need to be a rocket scientist to know there was no controlled demolition but one can be found to say so.

Hey angrysoba! I pissed myself at your half arsed attempt over at nobody’s blog. You really are something.. haha.

“Hey angrysoba! I pissed myself at your half arsed attempt over at nobody’s blog. You really are something.. haha.”

Edo, nobody clearly doesn’t care which of his or her evidence is genuine.

The glow in that photograph comes from a flashlight.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YW1jsUXoRgs

No, go to the bathroom and clean yourself up.

Verinage technique, nano explosives ?

To throw some reason back in here, the WTC towers were NOT destroyed by any type of controlled explosion using ANY type of explosives used today. There will always be conspiracy theories about this for a long time to come, but in the end it was a tradgedy caused by a group of people flying passenger jets into them. Speculate all you like, I am telling you that no explosives were used, and I know what I am talking about. Loons, the lot of you !

Yes, Frazer, I agree.

There was no controlled demolition.

oh what a barny.

As posted earlier, many options for how the buildings could have been rigged to rapidly disintegrate here:

http://preview.tinyurl.com/ygsq7bo

Plausible theories

* distributed explosives

* thermobaric devices

* thermite preparations

But why argue with substance when you can make fun of how people carry it to you?

Frazer, vernage technique was tossed in earlier by Larry who demanded a comment on its relevance, and nano-thermitic particles found in WTC dust samples were documented in a paper by dutch academics last year. Your footstomping is childish. Your case is that demo was too difficult to manage, yet was actualy achieved TWICE by plane collisions -each the equivalent of ONE bomb and ONE fire – is a very confident, modestly qualified yet comletely unsubstantiated, contradictory assertion. If you cant see that its because you refuse to look, simply.

This was to be the thread about 911, its clear who tried to be responsive and thoughtful and who tried to be dismissive and distruptive.

Best quote of the thread:

“Salandria said sadly. “All the critics, myself included, were misled very early. I see that now. We spent too much time and effort microanalyzing the details of the assassination when all the time it was obvious, it was blatantly obvious that it was a conspiracy. Don’t you think the men who killed Kennedy had the means to do it in the most sophisticated and subtle way? They chose not to. Instead, they picked the shooting gallery that was Dealey Plaza and did it in the most barbarous and openly arrogant manner. The cover story was transparent and designed not to hold, to fall apart at the slightest scrutiny. The forces that killed Kennedy wanted the message clear: ‘We are in control and no one — not the President, not Congress, nor any elected official — no one can do anything about it.’ It was a message to the people that their Government was powerless. And the people eventually got the message.”

Characteristically the main participants in this controlled discussion above are gatekeepers or gamers.

Conventionally objective debate consists in trading evidence and information to support a given position.The mutual exchange of research-based insight is the lifeblood of real dialogue.

Notwithstanding the fabricated and utterly synthetic “discussion” above there will remain enough people who in the face of the censors and disinformationists have retained enough natural human curiosity to want to follow this link:

http://jewishcrimenetworkdid911.blogspot.com/

Chris Bollyn has some insightful commentary on “strange and dangerous” Moschepoche involvement in 911 too.

http://www.bollyn.com/index.

Bollyn has a photo of himself after a Moschepoche attack.It’s the only language they know.

“The steel lost its integrity and the top column essentially sank into the building.”

The steel lost it’s integrity? You are beginning to sound like the Global Warming Alarmists who now that the Arctic ice cap has made a comeback are calling it “rotten ice”.

How, prey tell, did the steel lose its integrity?

“the top column essentially sank into the building.”

Did it, indeed? I admit that the sentence does give me some mental images. But it’s hardly nobel-prize-winning sciencespeak, is it. How did the steel that lost its integrity give way? Did every column on one, two or three floors snap or break simultaneously, or did the columns bend and bow one at a time a bit at a time so that the “top column” sank gently into whatever was supposed to sink into?

On momentum: “Well, then you would need to show some figures and perhaps take your own advice and:”

No I wouldn’t. If you can’t wrap your head around the principle of the conservation of momentum, then all your hard work on trying to explain “how the towers fell” will have been in vain.

Not only do you seem to be remarkably ignorant of physics, you are also ignornant of your own ignorance.

“No, but I am not saying that the Towers were demolished by verinage. Obviously.”

I’m glad to hear that. After all, the kind of structures that verinage has been used on (reinforced concrete) could not have been safely built to the height of the Twin Towers. Although he material has excellent compression resistance so that you could theoretically build a tower miles high out of it, It would never stand up to hurricanes if built to more than about 30 storeys.

But what you are really saying is that a Verinage collapse produces something akin to a pyroclastic flow too, so that a pyroclastic flow at the WTC doesn’t prove it was a controlled demolition. Point taken.

What I (and you) would have to look into here is whether the verinage collapses produce hot pyroclastic flows of the kind that burned and scorched people, cars and various objects at the WTC. Has anyone measured how hot the verinage dust clouds and blasts are? In any case, the difference in the size and height between a verinage event and the WTC events would make it difficult to compare temperatures directly. You’d expect the WTC clouds to be hotter as the amount of gravitational energy converted to heat would be much greater.

“There was a tilt. This is important because it shows that the load shifted.”

Yes, there was a tilt. Especially in the case of the South Tower there was a very pronounced tilt of the upper block. But then a funny thing happened. The block disintegrated in mid-air, dissapating it angular momentum in the process, much to the chagrin of all those engineers and physicists who are trying to explain the collapses without using some kind of demolition technique. Because 10-storey blocks of steel-framed building don’t normally do that.

“Loons, the lot of you!”

You’re proably right, Frazer. But we’re only doing a bit of hyperthetical speculation. None of us on this thread really knows what went on (apart from yourself, perhaps) and none of us are going to do much about it, so our beliefs don’t add up to a can of beans, do they. And it is a full moon tonight, so where’s the harm in howling like loons?

“Notwithstanding the fabricated and utterly synthetic “discussion” above”

It’s a fair cop! I freely admit it. I fabricated my part in it out of whole words and sythesized them from an alphabet soup of letters.

But I think there’s a world of difference between who dun 9-11 and how 9-11 was dun. I’m much more interested in the latter. Perhaps Craig might be gracious enough to open another thread for those who want to peel the onion on who was behind the people behind the people behind the people behind the people behind the various antics that add up to what we now call “9-11″.

Steelback’s eminently sensible 4 step inquiry method was censored out of this thread.

The references to the importance of NY as the venue for 911 have also met the same fate.

It’s therefore worth reiterating that NY is HQ to the Lobby,B’nai B’rith,ADL,Mishpucka,et al.All these groups were decisive in fomenting the anti-German hysteria in 1916-17 that led to US entry into WW1.

The same decisive Lobby power

shaped the Zionist position taken by Woodrow Wilson.

It was from NY in 1933 that Samuel Untermeyer declared World Jewry’s trade boycott war on Hitler’s Germany

in 1933 that culminated in WW2.

From NY Reform and conservative Jewry maintained their influence with FDR to ensure no Jews gained entry to Palestine during the war years.This was the blood sacrifice of the lesser brethren known as the Holocaust.

The Lobby’s form,means and motive were consistent throughout the twentieth century and the PNAC document was only one of a succession of such that evidenced their determination to use the alliance they had forged with the neo-cons at that time to involve the US in wars for “full spectrum dominance” across the Middle East in particular.

The catalyzing Pearl Harbour event we call 911 again is just one more in a succession of cassus belli/triggers for war that run through from Cuba in 1898,1912,1933,to Tonkin in 1964….ad nauseum.

War is the agreed means the Lobby has had since 1908 (Carnegie Endowment for Peace) to transform the US into the type of society they see as most compatible with their long-term goals.

“Best quote of the thread:

“Salandria said sadly. “All the critics, myself included, were misled very early. I see that now. We spent too much time and effort microanalyzing the details of the assassination when all the time it was obvious, it was blatantly obvious that it was a conspiracy. Don’t you think the men who killed Kennedy had the means to do it in the most sophisticated and subtle way? They chose not to. Instead, they picked the shooting gallery that was Dealey Plaza and did it in the most barbarous and openly arrogant manner. The cover story was transparent and designed not to hold, to fall apart at the slightest scrutiny. The forces that killed Kennedy wanted the message clear: ‘We are in control and no one — not the President, not Congress, nor any elected official — no one can do anything about it.’ It was a message to the people that their Government was powerless. And the people eventually got the message.”"

Agreed!

Mike Ruppert said much the same thing about 9/11 in 2003 and warned that discussing the physical evidence would lead nowhere. The State has to go after people of interest with subpoena power, interrogation under oath, getouttajailfree cards and the entire RICO playbook. But if the State itself is the criminal, it is not going to investigate itself short of regime change. The primary proof that 9/11 was an inside job is that it happened, period. The secondary proof is that it has never been properly investigated. Everybody knows this instinctively even if they don’t all grasp it intellectually. And many people have become mentally unbalanced, sick at heart or twisted because despite their instinctive knowlege, they can’t consciously acknowledge it. And the more people deny the truth, the sicker they get.

Still, I like talking about the possible mechanism for the destruction of the WTC in the same way I like talking about whether there was a big bang or why did marsupials and placentals both evolve bears, wolves, rats and cats. It has no bearing on who did 9-11. Steelback’s got a point there.

Steelback presents a few lofty lines on history and principles, and follows them with an summarised b-grade link which directs all responsability towards Jews. A ruse.

And the prize for

‘Most Obsessed with 9/11′

goes to Larry & Soba

with half of all comments on this thread.

————————————-

angrysoba,

I cannot understand what your motive is, here or on your own blog. I can understand those who doubt the official explanations of terror events; they need to have the anomalies cleared, because they see that a terrible crime may have been committed – a crime far worse than attacks by foreign agents, and with ominous consequences. But if you are so sure you know the answers and that the official explanations are true, why don’t you just get on with your life, like much of the populace, believing that our leaders are properly taking care of matters?

Or is it simply an intellectual exercise for you, in sourcing evidence and refuting claims? But, if that is so, why do you, as you said on another thread, “finally get fed up and start hurling abuse”, which suggests you have emotional involvement?

Clark, thanks (1113pm). Richard (Robinson)(145am), I didn’t know about the Brazilian general – an intriguing account, I appreciate you letting me know about it.

Btw, as a point of curious interest and maybe to lighten things up a bit (because life really is too short), around the late 1990s/ early 2000s a small fiction publisher based in Glasgow, Scotland was established called Neil Wilson Publishing and they put out a fiction imprint called, ’11/9′ (this was some time before ’9/11′, of course). The publisher used to be based – at that time – in The Pentagon Building, Washington Street, Glasgow (someone in the City Council, or elsewhere, must have had a sense of humour). We used to joke about their address whenever I bumped into them – they’ve put out some good material over the years and I see they’re still around: http://www.nwp.co.uk

“The steel lost it’s integrity? You are beginning to sound like the Global Warming Alarmists who now that the Arctic ice cap has made a comeback are calling it “rotten ice”.

How, prey tell, did the steel lose its integrity?”

It became soft. Less able to hold up the weight ablove it.

Watch:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rbfLLp7rBI&feature=player_embedded

“Did it, indeed? I admit that the sentence does give me some mental images. But it’s hardly nobel-prize-winning sciencespeak, is it.”

Oh, you want nobel-prize sciencespeak now do you?

Strangely enough, I thought you might permit regular metaphoricalspeak like the rest of us and didn’t think you needn’t my help to produce in you mental images.

“No I wouldn’t. If you can’t wrap your head around the principle of the conservation of momentum, then all your hard work on trying to explain “how the towers fell” will have been in vain.

Not only do you seem to be remarkably ignorant of physics, you are also ignornant of your own ignorance.”

I think I’m detecting some bluster and projection on your part. You’re quite happy with the notion that about 99 percent of structural engineers around the world couldn’t get their physics O levels but you’re applying your physics knowledge correectly.

Thing is Truthers dutifully parrot the old “conservation of momentum” mantra but it is no good if you can’t explain exactly how you are applying it to the collapse of the world trade center.

If you can, well…that really would be nobelsciencespeak.

” The block disintegrated in mid-air”

No, it did not. You’re making that up.

“But we’re only doing a bit of hyperthetical speculation. None of us on this thread really knows what went on (apart from yourself, perhaps) and none of us are going to do much about it,”

So, the Truthers are just poseurs with no plans to do anything about their special knowledge.

Right, that’s that established then.

“Steelback presents a few lofty lines on history and principles, and follows them with an summarised b-grade link which directs all responsability towards Jews”.

Crab, I must correct you. He provides a link that returns a page with the message: “The blog you were looking for was not found”

“I cannot understand what your motive is, here or on your own blog. I can understand those who doubt the official explanations of terror events; they need to have the anomalies cleared”

And I’m trying to clear them up. If people have questions, why shouldn’t someone answer them expecially when the claims are so easily cleared up. “Why weren’t the hijackers on the manifests?” etc…

“Or is it simply an intellectual exercise for you, in sourcing evidence and refuting claims? But, if that is so, why do you, as you said on another thread, “finally get fed up and start hurling abuse”, which suggests you have emotional involvement?”

If someone seems to have their fingers in their ears it annoys me. Especially, after patiently explaining something I’m having my explanations deliberatly twisted or if that person goes back to making exactly the same claim after being shown it is demonstrably false.

I was annoyed when MJ asked me to find evidence of funerals and body parts of passengers at the Pentagon and wouldn’t accept newspaper reports of funerals.

Larry,

“the very vibrant anti-war movement wants nothing to do with you”

In another thread I asked you respectfully after you declared yourself as a lawyer, your speciality. I was interested in you. You failed to answer – a simple yes/no.

People here have read your comments elsewhere when you tried hard to vilify Craig, your host, and blacken his reputation. This, to a genuine humanitarian, a man, one in a million, a former ambassador of my country willing to stake his reputation for the anti-establishment anti-war movement.

Then you mention the New York Fire Department in a single bullet list.

Brave men who are suffering today from the effects of 9/11.

Here later, I am going to tell people about these brave men, how they suffered, and what their experiences were on that sad, traumatic and catastrophic day. Many legal disputes are still in the legal law process 9 years on.

I am no ‘truther’ as you say 19 Arabs crashed planes, but something is wrong with the analysis, something that propels many professional, intelligent men and women including military personnel, reject the official account as it stands, without the detail of a public inquiry, that the families of loved ones lost and dying have called for. You Larry, by your clib comments are in a small way preventing that inquiry.

Myself, I believe gross incompetence occurred on that day, one event, as witnessed by a young American, who was stood next to Cheney watching the track of an attack on the Pentagon and Cheney did zilch. Subsequently Norman Mineta’s testimony was ignored.

You are a man of straw Larry and I stand by my harsh comments.

“Mike Ruppert said much the same thing about 9/11 in 2003 and warned that discussing the physical evidence would lead nowhere.”

Do you think cops do that when investigating a crime? Pretty dumb if they do.

“The primary proof that 9/11 was an inside job is that it happened, period.”

With that kind of logic I would suggest some different reading matter.

“The secondary proof is that it has never been properly investigated.”

According to you. Besides, you do forget the fact that CYA is an important factor in some people not wanting to look at some things.

“Everybody knows this instinctively even if they don’t all grasp it intellectually. And many people have become mentally unbalanced, sick at heart or twisted because despite their instinctive knowlege, they can’t consciously acknowledge it. And the more people deny the truth, the sicker they get.”

LOL!!!!1!

Mentally unbalanced unlike, say, David Icke, David Shayler, Jimmy Walters, Alex Jones or Sean Fitzgerald?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tmLZRFXQ48

Or Kevin Barret, Charlie Sheen, Judy Wood etc…

The very vibrant anti-war movement

wants nothing to do with you

In another thread I asked you respectfully

after you declared yourself as a lawyer, your speciality. I was interested in

you. You failed to answer – a simple yes/no.

People here have read your comments

elsewhere when you tried hard to vilify Craig, your host, and blacken his

reputation. This, to a genuine humanitarian, a man, one in a million, a former

ambassador of my country willing to stake his reputation for the anti-establishment

anti-war movement.

Then you mention the New York Fire

Department in a single bullet list.

Brave men who are suffering today from the

effects of 9/11.

Here later, I am going to tell people about

these brave men, how they suffered, and what their experiences were on that

sad, traumatic and catastrophic day. Many legal disputes are still in the legal

law process 9 years on.

I am no ‘truther’ as you say 19 Arabs

crashed planes, but something is wrong with the analysis, something that propels

many professional, intelligent men and women including military personnel,

reject the official account as it stands, without the detail of a public

inquiry, that the families of loved ones lost and dying have called for. You

Larry, by your glib comments are in a small way preventing that inquiry.

Myself, I believe gross incompetence

occurred on that day, one event, as witnessed by a young American, who was

stood next to Cheney watching the track of an attack on the Pentagon and Cheney

did zilch. Subsequently Norman Mineta?s testimony was ignored.

You are a man of straw Larry and I stand by

my harsh comments.

” was annoyed when MJ asked me to find evidence of funerals and body parts of passengers at the Pentagon and wouldn’t accept newspaper reports of funerals”.

Now now, you know full well I didn’t ask you to find evidence, only to let me know if you came across any. You also know full well that the reports you provided could not possibly have been of funerals because they referred to the weekend immediately after 911. Clearly not enough time to complete the identification process using DNA, which we know wasn’t completed until November 16.

“I believe gross incompetence occurred on that day, one event, as witnessed by a young American, who was stood next to Cheney watching the track of an attack on the Pentagon and Cheney did zilch. Subsequently Norman Mineta’s testimony was ignored”.

Mark: it is most charitable of you to describe this as incompetence. I for one interpret it as Cheney doing his job. This, by default, is the much-rumoured stand-down order, plain for all to see.

MJ

A stand down is for sure. Soon I hope to fall on the side of truth regarding 9/11, but I am in the middle of a complicated (if it was planned it took 2, 3 or more years) unravelling, including decryption.

Scientists and others are looking again at the forces involved, especially after the analysis of ‘Ground Zero dust’

“Judy Wood etc…”

Actually, I’ll take that back about Judy Wood.

I like her website and Star Wars laser beams is probably no more silly than most of the inside job claims.

Angrysoba – that’s right, and she’s got a PhD, and she was/is a professor, so there’s gotta be something to her directed energy weapons!

(at least as good as every other truther claim)

Yep, here’s someone who’s got his read right according to Tim:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ccX_PQtlMY&feature=related

Tim wrote:

“Yes, there was a tilt. Especially in the case of the South Tower there was a very pronounced tilt of the upper block. But then a funny thing happened. The block disintegrated in mid-air, dissapating it angular momentum in the process, much to the chagrin of all those engineers and physicists who are trying to explain the collapses without using some kind of demolition technique. Because 10-storey blocks of steel-framed building don’t normally do that.”

Tim, this is cartoonish!

1. Where did you get the idea that the angular momentum of the collapsing floors dissipated? Why wasn’t that observed in the verinage videos? Why wasn’t that observed in any of your videos? It’s as if you expected around 3/4 of each tower to remain standing as the floors above the plane impact level did what – just blow away? Am I getting that right? You expected the top floors to disappear like ghosts in some form of whispering essence?

2. Once again you ignore all the jet fuel.

Do you understand that the planes came into the buildings with thousands and thousands of gallons of jet fuel?

“”Then you won’t mind re-posting the video of the audible explosions.”

Right after Larry posts documentation and still photos of “the head”.”

Again, you’re just sick. First you wanted newspaper articles. Now you want stills of my friend’s head.

Then you’ll show us evidence of audible explosions?

First, obviously the two have nothing to do with one another. angrysoba and I certainly seem friendly to one another, but we don’t know each other, so we’re hardly a team. Plus, THE TWO HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH ONE ANOTHER.

Second, you’re obviously a very sick person.

Third, there might be some good reason for me to hold back any more information about a victim on 911 on a public forum (especially with people like you and the JOOOOO-haters around – and that includes people that I’m convinced are potential terrorists, like Apostate)

Fourth, I never claimed to have the evidence you were looking for. You’ve pestered me for evidence of a dead friend – but do you think I ever looked to find evidence of my dead friend? If you have a friend die, do you thereafter look on the Internet in case you have to prove it some day?

But YOU are claiming to have evidence of audible explosions at the WTC. You mentioned videos. You claim to be holding them back in a bizarre, twisted childish game.

Actually, I’m not interested in your links, and I imagine angrysoba isn’t as well. There were no audible explosions at the WTC. We know that videos have been doctored to add them in, but that’s simply because the people who have sold you the conspiracy are frauds, but that’s nothing new.

Just to keep angrylarry fully exercised, I should point out that there are other fuses smouldering along towards the keg of gunpowder his fat arse is parked upon.

tinyurl.com/yhgeeh2

Vronsky, that makes no sense.

Evidently this site is now listed as gamer/Mossad-penetrated at Bob Goldman’s leftgatekeeper.com

Doesn’t it show.Contributions to this thread in particular have given precedence to Zionist or elite-subsidized dissidents who forward the establishment left’s agenda of ideological warfare against conspiracy researchers.

When conspiracists get through the censor their contributions to the thread are usually telling.

I was struck by Steelback’s 4 step research method,the link re-Dov Zackheim’s role in 9/11 and those provided to the work of Kevin MacDonald on the Franfurt School and Christopher Bollyn’s output.

Following Goldman’s tracking vigilance procedure that involved my having to read the interminably puerile contributions from the likes of Larry from St Louis and angrysober and numerous others whose agenda was patently on the disinformation/psy-ops track I found that the most important links were being systematically erased.

It seems to be the case that once the Zionists get a site in their grip they begin to call the shots.Most left-gatekeepers are terrified by the prospect of being fingered as having hosted any material deemed critical of Israel or the history of the Lobby that might be labelled “antisemitic”.

The distinction between anti-Zionism and anti-semitism gets conveniently lost due to this typically leftist loss of nerve.Hence topics like the Holocaust or Jewish involvement in 9/11 are not well covered on such sites.

Gamers and psy-ops are given free rein by these hosts whose sites inevitably succumb to Zionist pressure and moderate out the better researched contributions to the discussion.

This is clearly the case here where another ostensibly cutting edge anti-establishment site has ended up acting as a cypher for corporate media disinformation.

Goldman found that such sites infected terminally as they are by the tapeworm of Zionist propaganda soon received fewer hits and lost ground to the genuine anti-Zionist or conspiracy sites.

Goldman’s research on left-gatekeeper sites is here:

http://questionsquestions.net/topic/leftgatekeepers.html

Out of courtesy to Craig – and anyone interested:

Not wishing to further increase the round-and-round-in-circles futility of 500 odd comments and counting, I’ve joined ‘Nobody’ with a separate blog post on this.

Goldman seems to have identified sites that soon after go the way of all flesh!

The vast majority seem to have been Foundation-funded and their sponsors will have returned to backing more middle ground mainstream output after they crashed.

Rest assured the best trail-blazing sites retain remarkable energy and staying power probably because there’s such a treasure trove of material out there that’s never been subjected to the proper scrutiny by professional researchers free from Foundation strings-attached funding.

For research resources Tragedy and Hope takes some beating.Named after Carol Quigley’s magnum opus it’s replete with trailblazing often censored material on elite NWO planning.Check out Propaganda Matrix too.

Both these sites retain message boards where real discussion and engagement are highly valued.

Proud, Craig?

You tried hard Lamby. Despite getting nowhere Craig will be proud of you. Chin up my son.

Larry,

Let’s get a discussion going on the open paper by Niels H. Harrit, The Open Chemical Physics Journal

Volume 2

ISSN: 1874-4125

without condemning the author

What are your views

I am interested.

tungsten

You ran with my theme of the specific NY provenance of 911 being a clue to the atrocity’s true authorship.

Reference was also made to landholdings and real estate in NY generally and at the WTC specifically.Larry Silverstein (Moschepoche) was landlord at WTC 7.It was the CIA station and various Enron tax record documents-the smoking gun of the operation.

On the history of false-flag terrorism in Italy during the 1970s the work of Sanguinetti and Guy de Bord’s Society of the Spectacle is particularly relevant.Sanguinetti made the point that recourse to false-flag terror on the part of elites as means to control domestic populations becomes increasingly addictive.

The more threatened they feel the more inclined they are to up the ante.

Mark, we already started discussing that with the laughable claim of planted thermite. As I asked above, where’s the splatter or drip pattern on any of the columns?

“various Enron tax record documents”

Steelback, you hate Jews; we get that – you’re a hateful person. But are you stupid beyond that? You know that there are copying machines, digital records, email trails, SEC disclosure requirements and all documents to fulfill those requirements etc. etc.

Troofers live in a dream world where a major corporation’s documents are kept in one place.

Mark, read this about your journal:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17288-spoof-paper-accepted-by-peerreviewed-journal.html

fail

After all these years, I still am unable to be certain about this issue of the destruction of the WTC, etc. in 2001.

Unlike Craig, I do not think that any sense of morality or nationalism would have inhibited the Bush Administration from killing Americans; governments have always killed their own people en masse, usually by sending them off to war.

What might weaken the ‘inside job’ argument is the practical difficulty entailed in pulling off such a complex operation – especially from the almost incompetant people who proved unable to control Iraq, who seemed at sea with New Orleans and who botched Afghanistan (in their own terms, I mean).

However, the statement that ‘surely someone would have blown the whistle’ among the many who would have to have been involved, the answer of course is that many have done exactly that – the FBI agent told to pull away from an investigation; some of the people told not to fly, etc., etc. – and there seem to have been many of these types of people from within the engine of the US state not normally given to wild theorising who have expressed their uneasiness, not to mention more recently some of the actual investigatory commission members. The problem is, each person was responsible for only a small part of whatever might have been the rubric and so can tell us only about their part; they don’t know the big picture (if indeed there is one).

And so, my view is that it’s best to keep an open mind, not to allow either fantastical hypothesising or rigid denial to possess one but to remain deeply skeptical of the official narrative (and of official narratives in general).

It seems to me to be best to focus on the fact that wars have been launched by the USA in recent years on a number of countries in the world, particularly in the Middle East and Central Asia and that these wars have resulted in the deaths of at least hundreds of thousands, possibly more, men, women and children and continue to result in a daily resume of death and misery, to the enrichment of those who profit from violent death, to the generation of further conflict (history shows us that one war tends to lead to another) and to the continued destabilisation of the world. This demonstrates the true measure of the amorality at work and this is the the machine which needs to be opposed.

Tim Groves: Good work!

Larry & Soba: Not seen that really strong evidence you were claiming about yet,

which finally proved everything, but nobody saw it because the blog moved on.

Rather than scratching about looking for them, would you mind just cut&pasting

the best of them here?

Thanks!

Glenn,

What evidence were you looking for?

Didn’t you just repeat a bunch of questions? Was there something specific that you needed?

One more thing – look at this picture of the ValuJet crash – WHERE IS THE PLANE! OH NO! CONSPIRACY!

http://www.cnn.com/EVENTS/1996/year.in.review/us/valujet/valujet.html

These Shin Bet budgerigars have been at the Trill again.

angri,Larry the simpleton,techniprick et al-these saddoes were wittering on till 3 a.m. yesterday morning.

The references to their enemies as “Troofers” is quite characteristic of the level of degeneracy they seem to think passes for debate.

The fact that these guys can’t spell the word,”truth” is clearly down to their being utter strangers to it.

Mark, about thermite:

As I asked above, where’s the splatter or drip pattern on any of the columns?

You seem to want to ignore my question. It’s a real problem for people who are still arguing for thermite after all these years.

You’re an engineer pushing this claim – why can’t you just answer the simple questions of a non-engineer?

Hello. And Bye.

I’ll give you a reply once in a why Larry. You deserve that, since you try so hard. So maybe you

could try to answer to this (you have several days before my next reply to you, so make it a good

one!) That plane you reference (about a third the size of a standard jumbo) crashed into a

freaking swamp. A swamp is likely to sink and cover up crashes a heck of a lot better than

ordinary terrain. Or a pristine lawn outside a well monitored government building, and let’s not

even get started on how engines off a jumbo don’t even scratch the glass of windows they’ve

supposedly bounced off, on Magic Arab Day, before vapourising completely. Yet the delicate

nose-cone smashes through several levels of reinforced iron and concrete before, err,

vapourising entirely itself.

It’s actually a struggle to think which part of your “magic Arab day” hypothesis is the more

ludicrous. So help you out here. Which part of the whole thing did you find the hardest to

swallow? That buildings should collapse most improbably? That hijackers find their victims

so obliging, they just call in “goodbye” messages? That they are flying aces? That they were

the luckiest guys on Earth, just happening to do their stunts the _very day_ air defences are

being all half-arsed, given it’s a demo day and… Jeez… when does one stop?

(Answer – as a True Believer – absolutely nothing the government said is in the slightest

way odd! As a Good German, I believe my government about everything, particularly if it

is important for them that you do so.)

*

I must say, Angrysoba/larry – you cover yourself in much glory, how many other people

would go to real lengths, stick their neck out, post night and day to support their

government from a bunch of total, stupid, tin-foil drooling “loons” who might suggest

some silly notion other than the Official Story?

Glenn, you’re still doing your usual thing of trying to ridicule basic facts by claiming an “Official Story” in which there were these “Magic Arabs”.

Nonsense. You don’t need to be magic to fly a plane. It is silly to say that an ability to fly a plane is magic when an Arab does it. Silly and racist.

On the other hand you do say that an unkown substance that may as well be pixie dust allowed the buildings to be demolished in a controlled demolition unknown to anyone in which there were silent noisy explosions.

So which is the most likely?

It’s been over 6 hours without a post from angrylarry. Does anyone think he just keeled over stone dead or something? I am genuinely worried for him.

Angrysoba,

Here’s a sad equivalent of Glenn:

http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=1506

“Mike Adams, editor of Natural News, is, in my opinion, a dangerous conspiracy-mongering crank. There is simply no way to be kind to his views and the nonsense he spreads on his website. His intellectual sloppiness is indistinguishable from dishonesty, as he peddles dubious cancer cures, pseudoscience such as homeopathy, and attacks vaccines and effective therapies for AIDS and other serious diseases.”

I know someone who is a big fan of Mike Adams at Natural News. Perhaps unsurprisingly this fan is a Truther.

I spoke to soon…

Just to jump on the same bandwagon as “nobody” and “Sabretache” I made my own post:

http://angrysoba.blogspot.com/2010/01/reality-deniers.html

Larry,

Well, I’ll look into your ‘dripping

colums’ but let’s face it there ‘aint

many columns I can investigate because

you are fully aware, the crime scene was

busted and disposed of.

Some ‘souvenirs’ have been kept I

believe and have been investigated.

Torch cutting was done after the

collapse, further contaminating the

scene, so it is difficult now to

analyse.

Personally I take great exception to Craig Murray’s blatent rigging of this thread to allow Shin Bet budgerigars like angrisober and Larry precedence over real researchers like Steelback.

Mr Murray is wiping Steelback contributions that link to sites that finger the Mishpucka network for 9/11.

Here’s one I found.Read before the censor gets to it.It explains why Larry Silverstein didn’t turn up for his bacon sandwich at the WTC on 9/11.

Now this will make the budgies choke on their sunflower seeds!

http://newsfromthewest.blogspot.com/2009/09/israel-did-9-11-here-is-the-proof.html

Well said,Apostate.

A key Moschpoche figure among the plethora of dual citizen Israelis/Mossad assets involved in 9/11 is this guy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Lauder#judaism

His Yiddisher Mama was Estee Lauder but there’s nothing that smells sweet about this guy.

The phrase-form,motive,and means comes to mind.

Tell Craig the budgie cage is in a hell of a mess this morning! angri,Larry et al have regurgitated their Trill again.

You know those pictures of dumb-ass ADL agents posing as al Qaida militants in fake videos.

It’s angri,Larry and the gang-I’m sure of it!

Like Disney did the voice for Mickey Mouse these guys do the voices for Intel Center,the Jewish company out of Alexandria,VA.Intel does the voices for the fake Jihadi videos the corporate media inflicts on us.

Intel’s not a million miles from St Louis…..are you thinking what I am?

Like they make megabucks out of wars,”Holocausts”,now they doing it off the 100% phoney “War on Terror”.

Make up a crock of lies and sell it to the gullible Goy.It’s a bit like Hollywood.

Check out the Intel website:

http://www.intelcenter.com/

You can order the Xmas 2009 Attack Wall Chart now($29.95).This was already out in the run-up to Xmas!Or there’s the Intel World Threat map that lights up every time the Mossad patsey jihadi team strikes somewhere!

Larry’s got both….don’t tell his boss though,guys!

(2 ^ 9) + 1 comments and counting…

Suhayl Saadi,

thank you for your post at January 30, 2010 9:15 PM, which so clearly says so much that I’ve been thinking for years.

Suhayl Saadi,

sorry, that was my comment 10:40 above.

I wonder whether our host will terminate this thread when it becomes inundated with the overwhelming evidence for 911 being a false-flag op.

I’m on the net 24/7 and just hit on this thread.I can’t believe you got people here who still believe the 19 Saudi hijacker beloney.

It’s like coming up against the wall of blind obedience and ignorance behind the medieval mindset.Stunning!

Anyone with a scintilla of perception should have worked out by now that Bologna,Bali,9/11,Madrid,7/7 and Mumbai all bear the indelible imprint of an international terror network bent on forwarding Western geopolitical interests.

In fact the correspondences between 9/11 and 7/7 are glaring.The hired patsies,parallel security exercises,immediate ascription of blame without evidence to jihadi groups,involvement of Israeli front companies,intelligence networks and offshore banks.

The bus bomb at Tavistock Square where Israeli white hire vans appear in all the pictures just like they did on 911 are key clues.

Maybe you guys need to research Tavistock too.I don’t mean the town in N.Devon,I mean the psy-ops clinic.

Welcome to the 21st century!Time to do some of your own research,guys.

Dear Mr Ambassador-please run a thread on 7/7.

Apostate,

Steelback,

Tungsten,

there are ways to express your opinions without seeming anti-Jewish. I can’t understand why you don’t use them, if your concern is for the truth. I followed one of Steelback’s links a few days ago, and found myself at a totally racist site.

Clark,

I’m guessing that those three posters are all the same person.

Their styles and pathological behaviour are remarkably similar.

I would also recommend not clicking any of their links. If anyone is here to cause trouble it’s them/him.

Angrysoba,

my critical facilities are in tact, thankyou. You have no more way of ascertaining if these posts come from one person or three than the people who accuse you of being the same person as Larry.

Apostate

I reckon Larry,angri,technicoloured et al were the Jews caught dancing and filming on 9/11.Chertoff had them returned to the masonic state where all the Moschepoche/sayanim crooks end up.

They went to Intel after blowing their “cover”!

On Juliani and the Rothschild Brit Royalty 9/11 input:

http://ziopedia.org/wiki/Rudy_Giuliani

“You have no more way of ascertaining if these posts come from one person or three than the people who accuse you of being the same person as Larry.”

No, I don’t. But you do, don’t you?

Or maybe Craig does.

Angrysoba,

no, I only have analysis of writing styles and content. What makes you think otherwise?

“where’s the splatter or drip pattern on any of the columns”

There are plenty of pictures/videos of molten steel dripping down the buildings prior to collapse eg here:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2I3vRbxMWo

After collapse of course we are somewhat hindered by the fact that the steel was whisked off, cut up and sold before accident investigators could get their hands on it.

angri

Don’t pull the psycho-analytic bull.That Freudian crock of unscientific horseshit worked just like the Frankfurt hocus pocus re-the “Authoritarian Personality” as means to pathologize cohesive resistance to elite Jewish subversion and supremacism.

Such resistance comes as a natural consequence of resource competition in which Jewish community cohesion and high investment parenting have afforded that group enormous advantages over the individualist,fragmented low investment parenting now endemic as a result of “sexual liberation” and anti-authority Franfurt/psychoanalytic cultural engineering over decades in the West.

Pathologizing people’s growing awareness of the existence over a century of a deeply ethnocentric,ethnic networking-adept,endogamous,highly intelligent and wealthy Jewish elite is less likely to work these days.

Ownership of the means of cultural production gives the elite you defend decided advantages in the mainstream realm but they’ve left you to fight their corner here on the net with nothing but a flock of budgerigars!

Not working,dude!

As an elite,the Jews have wielded power vastly disproportionate to their numbers so that anti-Jewish attitudes and behaviour are odds-on phenomena when Jewish power conflicts with the interests of the vast majority.

The various themes of modern anti-semitism come down to the Jewish role as a hostile elite with attitudes nad behaviour that are in conflict with the interests of others:economic domination in parts of eastern and central Europe prior to WW2;cultural subversion via the Jewish role in the media and intellectual life;and in the context of 9/11 in particular dual loyalty because of Jewish sympathies with foreign Jews,especially Israel since 1948.

The history of Jews as a hostile elite in the Soviet Union when that country became the most murderous regime in European history decidedly was not in the interests of the 30m victims of famine and gulag.

If saying that some resistance to these forms of elite behaviour is only natural provides legitimacy for anti-semitism I would counter by saying that Zionism provides intellectual legitimacy to the dispossession of the Palestinians and all the horrors that go with that primal evil.

Now go and clean up the droppings you and your budgie friends left in the cage last night!

“angri

Jewish subversion… Jewish community…wealthy Jewish elite …the Jews … anti-Jewish attitudes … Jewish power …

Jewish role as a hostile elite … the Jewish role in the media and intellectual life… dual loyalty because of Jewish sympathies with foreign Jews,especially Israel since 1948…. provides legitimacy for anti-semitism …Zionism…”

and on and on and on…

“What makes you think otherwise?”

I thought you might be able to see their IPs. If not then sorry about that.

Apostate,

if you have a message, it is getting obscured my your obvious aggression. Are you sure that this is what you want?

Thanks, Clark. This thread, with a few notable exceptions, seems to have sunk into a rather dispiriting yet predictable quagmire of accusation and counter-accusation. The openly anti-Jewish posts (who seem constantly to complain about not being allowed to post) are utterly counter-productive and abhorrent to any rational discourse. Do the people who post this stuff actually know personally any Jewish people?

It is important to state that whilst one can, and should, expose and criticise the actions of the Israeli state especially towards the Palestinians and the inordinate leverage exerted by that state on US foreign policy in relation particularly to the Middle East, it is completely another matter – and, I would suggest, completely unacceptable – to proceed from the very different premise of visceral hatred for ‘Americans’ or ‘Jews’ or ‘Muslims’ or whatever, and consequently to view the sum total of reality through that distorting prism.

Such input simply has the effect of conflating criticism of empire with rabid racism. I think that everyone who wants to has probably expressed everything there is to express about ’9/11′ and there are a surfeit of links on the web for people to go exploring should they wish to do so, and so perhaps like other threads, it will peter out. Maybe I too ought to avoid feeding it! Best wishes.

Suhayl Saadi,

again, I thoroughy agree. Best wishes to you, too.

MJ, as to your new video – the page below is what’s called a thorough debunking. However; I’m not under any illusion that you’ll stop saying such silliness. This is a religion to you.

http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2007/02/ups-on-81st-floor-of-wtc2.html

Also, the investigation of the WTC remains was one of the most involved investigations in history.

The idiot Jesse Ventura now has a conspiracy show in the U.S. Apparently there’s still a significant amount of steel out at JFK airport for the purpose of study. It’s in a warehouse, apparently protected by – get this – a locked door!

The upshot is that that conspiracy freak pretended that he wasn’t allowed access, as there was video showing him peering into the window, without being allowed to get through the door. But get this – the same week, a real newsman did a report on the WTC wreckage, and he toured the facility with cameras. Turns out there was really nothing to hide behind that one locked door with a window.

Who do you believe?

this is what happens when truthers get confronted with questions:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvKgj_EjUDw

“The 9/11 Post”…

http://tinyurl.com/y9gcyvb

George,

I did my best to avoid such a scenario, but to no avail. Thanks for making me laugh.

“I did my best to avoid such a scenario, but to no avail. Thanks for making me laugh.” – Clark.

Likewise.

And see also http://xkcd.com/386/

“the investigation of the WTC remains was one of the most involved investigations in history”

Hampered somewhat by the hasty and illegal removal and sale of the evidence (I’m sure you meant to add).

The xkcd cartoon link there is me, sorry.

I need a “Remember to remember me” metabutton …

“Hampered somewhat by the hasty and illegal removal and sale of the evidence (I’m sure you meant to add).”

Evidence?

No?

Evidence, yes.

No, you have no evidence for your claim.

The material was investigated. Conclusions were made. The remains of people were searched for.

Truthers seem to think that the world owes them a favor – that ALL of the WTC material should be sitting on an island somewhere for them to investigate. That’s not how it works. But there’s plenty of steel at a warehouse at JFK airport. It’s behind a locked door. Either break into the door, or schedule an appointment.

“No, you have no evidence for your claim”

For goodness sake Larry, do your research. Over 80% of the steel was illegally removed, cut up and sold to the far east before investigators could look at it. Even the most blinkered and committed believers in the official account do not dispute this.

http://tinyurl.com/yfvgpk5

Again, where’s the photographic evidence of thermite?

Why would anyone want to do a demolition using thermite?

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/photosoftorch-cutsteel

January 31, 2010

“9/11, Deep Events, and the Curtailment of U.S. Freedoms”

“A talk delivered to the New England Antiwar Conference, MIT, January 30, 2010.”…

http://tinyurl.com/yftnp7d

Larry,

why was the steel evidence taken away?

Why is there clear evidence of nanothermite in WTC dust – (not red paint! – that appears to yield high energy when exposed to a naked flame. Do you think it was planted?

Listen I have seen evidence of WTC steel columns that looked like swiss cheese (holes)

Can somebody find these images, I have forgotten the link.

Larry,

The images exist – are they fake?

“That was from Bill Manning”

What’s your point Larry? That Manning is lying? You’re clutching at straws. I picked that link pretty much at random. It’s well-established that the steel was removed and sold. It’s even in the link you provided:

“Nearby scrap recyclers have begun cutting, shearing, shredding and shipping the biggest volumes of metals they have ever faced. Recycling the steel and other metals could net a few tens of millions of dollars (NYT Oct. 9, 2001)”

“Again, where’s the photographic evidence of thermite?”

It’s in the nature of the collapses; the rivulets of steel dripping down the buildings pre-collapse; the molten steel beneath the rubble for weeks after.

It’s only a theory however. If the steel had been retained so investigators could analyse it, as was required by law, there’d be no need for theories.

Where’s the photographic evidence to support NIST’s theory, or FEMA’s now discredited theory?

There should be no need for theories by now. The steel would have told its own story. But it was destroyed. Get over it.

Larry,

it is Mark.

Apostate,

I tried your link which gave me a warning and the cert. was unsigned, when I allowed it, the site was unknown. Have you another link?

Larry,

you’re making much better comments than when you started. Disproving explosives / demolition really is your strong point. How long have you been doing this?

MJ,

I followed a link, oh, over a week ago, regarding uninteruptable power supplies in one of the towers; very convincing explanation for the molten metal seen streaming from the side of the building prior to collapse.

Molten metal beneath the rubble? I can’t explain this.

The best sites on 9/11 and most other topics are the ones that provide you with the research resources to explore for yourself.

Unless,like the vacuuous angri/Larry brigade you have an aversion for doing your own research check out the James Corbett’s Open Intelligence site.

James has done 7 podcasts on 9/11,all exhaustively documented.The most recent was:

http://www.corbettreport.com/mp3/episode097_91109.mp3

At the very least you will come away from the broadcast with your appetite for real information thoroughly whetted.You will certainly realise there’s a world of difference between the corporate media’s drip-fed disinformation and what you can discover yourself from following the right leads.

James’s documenation trail for this one episode ranges from Colleen Rowley who blew the whistle on the PTech software that may have been used to plan,coordinate and perpetrate the 9/11 attacks and was allowed by its creators to fall into the hands of terror financiers to William Bergman’s Fed insider expose of the 9/11 money trail.This latter of course makes it abundantly clear that major financial players had foreknowledge of the coming attacks and made sure they were in position to profit therefrom.

As has been previously stated the war-mongers have false-flag form over 100 years or so when it comes to igniting the fear,hatred and general emotive force for wars that otherwise would have been distinctly unpopular with the public.

That 9/11 falls into this category there is not one shred of doubt.

Many conspiracy theorists complain that the “controlled demolition” hypothesis wasn’t tested. But the problem is that they haven’t given a coherent account of this controlled demolition that can’t be refuted.

NIST, for example, explain why they didn’t test for a controlled demolition.

There are no sounds of explosives on the video evidence that exist.

The steel didn’t show any signs of being blasted by explosives. (Apparently an explosive signature is very distinctive according to explosives experts). So even if much of the beams were shipped off to China blackened and smouldering like exploded cigars in a Bugs Bunny cartoon you’d have to account for why the Chinese didn’t notice.

There were no explosive-related injuries reported and then there are also the objections made by Frazer earlier.

Here’s also the account of talk by explosives expert Ron Craig who disputes the explosive controlled demolition hypothesis. The point is that if the Truthers can’t refute each of these points then their hypothesis is not even worth testing as it is a weaker explanation for the collapse of the towers than the NIST report.

http://recursed.blogspot.com/2009/03/911-truthers-meet-their-waterloo-ron.html

So, in order to escape from the fact that no signatures of explosives exist they have to rely on thermite (or one of its variants).

Again, this hypothesis is completely impllausible given the fact that thermite isn’t used in controlled demolitions. If it is not used to do this then this destroys one of their claims to skepticism which is something along the lines of “no-steel-framed building of approximately 110-stories has ever fallen down after being hit by a plane full of jet fuel and then fallen down and yet two came down on the same day!”

The reason for “skepticism” is absurd. Thermite, or thermate, or nanothermite or whatever has never been used for such a purpose either.

Ron Craig also delves into why thermite is unlikely given its lack of chemical signature in the same link I provided.

Also there are examples which refute the idea that steel-framed buildings can collapse due to fire.

All in all, there is really nothing left of the Truthers claim that a controlled demolition hypothesis need to be taken seriously and that is why NIST didn’t test for it.

Angrysoba,

were you replying to someone? No one else had posted anything for hours… Especially not about that.

Ok, to sum up, it’s been conclusively proven on this thread that 9/11 was indeed an inside job. Thanks to all for participating and keeping it mostly civil. I salute you!

Seconded!

“were you replying to someone? No one else had posted anything for hours… Especially not about that.”

No one has been talking about explosives, steel and thermite?

Really?

Anyway, if you read the link I posted Ron Craig also goes into the molten metal claim that you were asking about.

Angrysoba,

yes, I missed it, somewhere way back, I suppose. I’m sure there’s a simple explanation.

Night night!

Here’s a video on the “pools of molten steel” claim:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YXzjAKJQOg&feature=related

Night night!

Sweet dreams.

Ok, so 9/11 was an inside job then. All sorted.

“Ok, to sum up, it’s been conclusively proven on this thread that 9/11 was indeed an inside job. Thanks to all for participating and keeping it mostly civil. I salute you!”

Seconded!

Incidentally, I posted a “final” comment with links to videos about (1) “audible explosions”, (2) “conservation/transfer of momentum at the WTC” and (3) “conservation of angular momentum in the case of the South Tower” but craig’s automatic filter stopped it from being posted. The same thing happened a few days earlier although he later let that one through. So maybe he’ll do the same with the “final” one.

Anyway, Angrysoba, I appreciate that you are sincere in your beliefs (or “a true believer” if you prefer) and that you’re not a paid shill, but you are in deep denial about the salient facts of 9/11. Refusing to understand the evidence presented to you is not the same thing as debunking it. Refusing to concede a point because it weakens the case you are making, even when you know the point is valid is intellectually dishonest. I don’t mind people whose opinions differ from mine on important issues, but I find it hard to respect people whose regard for their own opinion causes them to ignore facts and to deride anyone who has the audacity to present them.

And this is my “final, final” comment on this thread.

So many years in, it’s obviously a religion to you.

I can be convinced that 911 was an inside jobby job. I just need to see evidence. As Sagan told us (I’m sure others said it before), extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I’m sure Angrysoba feels the same way.

By the way, where’s the evidence of detonation cord? They found my friend’s head months after; why didn’t they one piece of detonation cord?

Were the steelworkers in on the conspiracy as well?

“They couldn’t even keep Watergate quiet, and that was a small group.”

I’m not persuaded by the 9/11 conspiracy theories at all. But I’m not sure the above is correct. For how long did Bletchley Park remain secret? And how many were involved … many hundreds, including quite junior staff? And how many employees and former employees have told us about GCHQ? Watergate was quite different, it seems to me.

Ok, to sum up again, it’s been conclusively proven on this thread that 9/11 was indeed an inside job. Thanks to all for participating and keeping it mostly civil. I salute you!

Tim Groves wrote: “Anyway, Angrysoba, I appreciate that you are sincere in your beliefs (or “a true believer” if you prefer) and that you’re not a paid shill, but you are in deep denial about the salient facts of 9/11. Refusing to understand the evidence presented to you is not the same thing as debunking it. Refusing to concede a point because it weakens the case you are making, even when you know the point is valid is intellectually dishonest.”

I don’t know about you, Larry, but I am struggling to understand where evidence exists that I have refused to understand.

Again, no audible explosions. I’ll have to assume that they are somewhere in the ether.

I STILL have never heard a coherent argument for controlled demolition, and Tim Groves, MJ and Glenn et. al. seem to have simply skirted over it or said that they don’t need to provide evidence or any counter-theory.

I simply won’t concede that the towers couldn’t collapse on the basis of a video that shows a controlled demolition once went wrong. It’s irrelevant.

So where is the evidence?

“”Ok, to sum up, it’s been conclusively proven on this thread that 9/11 was indeed an inside job. Thanks to all for participating and keeping it mostly civil. I salute you!”

Tim Groves: Seconded! ”

CONCLUSIVELY PROVEN???!??!?

Do you have any idea what those words mean?

Larry: “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I’m sure Angrysoba feels the same way.”

Sure, but I’m feeling generous and so I’ll say, “A claim requires evidence”.

Again, its next to non-existent and the “theory” requires all kinds of deus ex machina to pull it out of its many holes.

Ok, to sum up yet again, it’s been conclusively proven on this thread that 9/11 was indeed an inside job. Thanks to all for participating and keeping it mostly civil. I salute you!

Cheers for the additional comments guys.

Jaded/Borat – but I thought you thought that the Jews did it.

You do get some funny ideas Lamby. I suggest no one listens to this man’s incoherent ramblings.

Well, Soba, if you are going to take that crowing like a cockerel on top of his own pile of chicken shit attitude, I suppose I’ll have to make a post-final comment or two.

You want evidence of “audible explosions” at the Twin Towers. This compilation of MSM news reports should clear that up for you. But let’s see.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hW4WtRXqwVQ

Here’s the South Tower, just prior to the global collapse (at about 1 minute into the vid), you can clearly see a corner of the tower – aluminum cladding and major steel column/grid – no windows here ?” being eaten away by something very hot and red before giving way, then comes the explosive outburst from all around the same floor simultaneously, putting out a much lighter colored smoke/dust than had been emerging until that point. Note too how close to the corner the cloud is tinged with red. Not too how powerfully it explodes from the first. Finally, note how so many of the eye-witnesses who wern’t screaming “Oh my God!” was describing the event as “an explosion”, “a huge expolosion”, “exploding”, etc. This was, of course, before the official word that there were no explosions had gotten around.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhyu-fZ2nRA&feature=player_embedded

For an easy-peasy guide to how conservation of angular momentum would have prevented what was observed when the WTC South Tower collapsed, please sea here.

http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2009/08/conservation-of-angular-momentum-in.html

For an easy-peasy guide to how conservation of angular momentum would have prevented what was observed when the WTC South Tower collapsed, please sea here.

http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2009/08/conservation-of-angular-momentum-in.html

F**k me, I think he actually really has buggered off!

With only a bunch of sayanim budgerigars to defend it the official 9/11 cover story was bound to be proven a crock of horsecrap!

The 1976-79 House Assassinations Committee found the murders of JFK and MLK to be the result of CONSPIRACIES.Moreover these were found to have been conspiracies in which the FBI and investigating authorities had been woefully negligent to the point of allowing them to proceed unimpeded.

angri and Larry and the other sapskulls who stand by the official 9/11 story are peddling the myth that the government doesn’t do conspiracies!LOL! Their hopeless naivety is built wholly on the utterly ahistorical and fallacious idea that the elites who rule us have only our best interests at heart.

They’re either peddling this myth because they’re sayanim,government agents or because they’re just so dumb they actually believe it!

In the case of 9/11,individuals who were actually doing their job trying to protect the US and prevent the attacks were actively discouraged from doing so by their superiors.These superiors were rewarded with promotions.

One example of someone,among many,just trying to do his job was Michael Springman at the Visa Express Programme in Jeddah.He was prevented by the CIA from stopping militants tied to Bin Laden from getting US visas.

It’s the same story researchers encounter when they investigate things like the US perennial “War on Drugs”.The Bureau of Narcotics founded in 1930 was so successful that when it began to uncover the Establishment’s ties to organized crime it had to be shut down by the CIA and FBI!

At the highest level of the state investigative authorities charged with protecting the US there appears to have been active collusion on the part of the dual nationality/neo-con elements in the Bush administration with the Moshcepoche/Mossad intent on bringing off their “new Pearl Harbour” cassus belli.

Check out Greg Felton’s The Host and the Parasite to uncover the extent of dual nationality treachery in the Bush administration.

Felton has been accused by ADL et al of being “anti-semitic”-now you can’t get a higher recommendation,a surer suggestion that the guy’s on to something than that!

I think you know full well that that is not what I am talking about.

I am talking about audible explosions that caused the Twin Towers to collapse.

The first explosion, with the firefighters talking on the phone, is, if I am not mistaken from Steve Spak’s documentary made at the site.

The towers had already fallen by the time it was made.

The rest of that mishmash involves people talking about suspicious parcels or possible car bombs. They are clearly not the type of things are talking about.

Cars were known to have overheated and exploded at the site and no doubt that can be found video on which that was heard.

I am talking about a video of the COLLAPSE in which explosions are audible. I am sure I have made that stipulation clear.

Chris Bollyn posted yesterday on the latest impediment to the relatives’ bid for justice and our getting to the truth-another 9/11 Trial Cancelled:

http://www.bollyn.com/index.php#article_11656

Bollyn also posted on the Zionist PTech front software company earlier this month.

Bookmark Bollyn!

The second video… well… all I can say is you see things very differently to me.

The corner gave way, yes. But that is the same camera angle as I had shown before to show that it was a structural failure due to the steel losing its strength.

“aluminum cladding and major steel column/grid – no windows here ?” being eaten away by something very hot and red before giving way”

Hot and red? Fire, perhaps? No windows? I don’t understand the relevance.

“Finally, note how so many of the eye-witnesses who wern’t screaming “Oh my God!” was describing the event as “an explosion”, “a huge expolosion”, “exploding”, etc. This was, of course, before the official word that there were no explosions had gotten around.”

The collapse made a noise. No one is saying that it was silent. And given that as far as I understand the collapse began with a large amount of the steel being unable to support ten ot fifteen stories of steel and concrete which swung downwards into the impact zones before scything through the floor I would expect a large noise. But that is different to the sounds of explosives.

Click on the link to any of these from Implosion World for a controlled demolition sound:

http://www.implosionworld.com/cinema.htm

“This was, of course, before the official word that there were no explosions had gotten around.”

You might have to explain this a but more. Are you saying that people knew there were exlosions consistent with a controlled demolition but somehow none of the videos picked them up and then the people who made the claim were told to hush up about it?

I’ll have to get back to the conservation of angular momentum.

I don’t have time to look at it right now.

Thanks for posting it.

“I am talking about a video of the COLLAPSE in which explosions are audible. I am sure I have made that stipulation clear.”

I heard explosions while the buildings were collapsing in the video I posted. Also, many ey witnesses are quoted as having heard explosions, some at the time of collapse, on that video. And there are other videos on YouTube in which explosions are audible at the time of the collapses.

Of course, there is none so deaf as he who will not hear. Are denying that there were any audible explosions or that none of the noises audible during the collapses was due to an explosion? And are you going to say that the entire burden of proof is on me to prove that some of those noises were explosions? How tiresome!

I’m afraid I’m no more able to tell the difference between the sound of a bunch of explosions and the sound of a falling skyscraper or the sound of a heard of buffalo galloping across the praries than you are. But some people are quite skilled at such thing.

For example, this guy, rebelforgod, has done an audio spectrum analysis and he says he identified demolition charges, so there.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDSGm2jhdA0&feature=related

“The collapse made a noise. No one is saying that it was silent. And given that as far as I understand the collapse began with a large amount of the steel being unable to support ten ot fifteen stories of steel and concrete which swung downwards into the impact zones before scything through the floor I would expect a large noise. But that is different to the sounds of explosives.”

And you can discriminate between these different noises? When picked up by a camcorder mike 100 meters or more away in the middle of a noisy Manhatten major disaster? You’re ears are better than mine.

Also, you state that “understand the collapse began with a large amount of the steel being unable to support ten ot fifteen stories of steel and concrete”. What makes you that that would happen. Steel is a very good heat conductor. It would be hard to heat a section of it to the point where it was hot enough to become unable to support the load above it with jet fuel (which would have burnd off or ran down the outside walls or stairwells in a couple of minutes anyway) and office furnishings for fuel. Fires much bigger, brighter and longer have failed to heat steel to the point where it lost its load-bearing capacity.

Moreover, as Frank Legge has observed, ” even if the steel did get hot enough for collapse to start, the manner of collapse could only be explained by explosives. This proof rests on the fact that steel hardens as it distorts thus the initial movement must be slow as extra heat has to be supplied to overcome the hardening. No such slow initial movement can be seen.”

Soba, the WTC towers were constructed of three-dimensional steel grids that would have resisted any tendency to collapse all the way and would have absorbed the energy of a collapse had it started, which it wouldn’t have.

Also NIST’s own experimental and simulation work found no evidence that the steel could have been hot enough to give way when it did. Legge (2006) goes on (and on and on…:

“The conclusion of the NIST report is that fire and aircraft damage caused the initiating event that brought down the towers. Within the body of their report however is the statement that no steel was found which had been heated above 600 oC.This arouses suspicion as such temperatures should not be sufficient to bring about collapse. The NIST report provides diagrams depicting plane damage and data derived from their fire and temperature simulations. The report asserts that the simulations correspond to a satisfactory degree with the observed fires as recorded in videos and photographs. From these it appears that the initial collapse in WTC 1, if it had occurred, would have been at storey 95 or 96. That is the region where the building was most damaged by plane impact. There is little damage shown for storey 97. There is at least one video showing collapse starting at storey 96.

Study of the NIST diagrams shows that at the time of collapse the perimeter columns were not hot enough to place the building at risk. Most significantly the diagrams also show that the core areas of all storeys listed, from 92 to 99, spanning the plane damaged region, had cooled down substantially prior to collapse. The core area was hottest at the 30 and 45 minute readings but collapse did not occur until 102 minutes had elapsed, by which time the environment of the core had dropped to be mainly in the range 100 to 600 oC. Roughly half the area is shown in shades of blue, indicating temperatures no higher than 150 oC. Videos show that the core started to collapse before the perimeter.”

Tim: Thanks for those posts about the explosions, bombs in the basement. I didn’t manage to turn up such a good compilation while looking the other day.

A short while back there were these yucking sounds emanating from True-Believer posters while they typed about “silent explosions”. There’s not much silent about the explosions we heard on those reports, which many witnesses testified about. Unless one sticks their fingers in their ears and says “LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA” for the duration. Sadly, that is exactly the approach taken by a True Believer when appeals to authority, ridicule, and pointing to a sacred NIST document doesn’t do the job.

And now, we can say “9/11 was an inside job – motion carried!”

“NIST’s own experimental and simulation work found no evidence that the steel could have been hot enough to give way when it did.”

Have you read the full report? Have you also read the conclusion of the report which stated that the cause of the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 was the combination of the impact of the plane and the fire burning within.

You should read the actual document instead of copying what someone had put on a website.

Cesar Pelli, the architect of the Petronas towers in Malaysia made an accurate comments that “no building is prepared for this kind of stress.”

Another report by three engineers at the University of Edinburgh provisionally concluded that the fires alone (without any damage from the airplanes) could have been enough to bring down the WTC buildings.

Even the chief engineer who built the WTC said that it was not built to take the impact of a 767 flying a full speed. Although this is disputed there is no conclusive evidence to show otherwise. He also said that it was a testiment to the building design that it remained in tact for a hour to allow so many people to escape.

But I guess this will still not convince you…

Chris, the chief engineer might have said the WTC “was not built to take the impact

of a 767 flying a full speed”, and surely it wasn’t built to house someone carrying

a mobile telephone either, for obvious reasons. But that doesn’t mean it couldn’t

do so and besides, the 767 was not flying at full speed.

Is there any evidence that any steel had been heated by the fire above 600 degrees F,

and even then for more than a short period? There were people clearly standing in

the gap created by the planes, so it’s unlikely there was a huge furnace raging away

in there.

Have you read the NIST report yourself? It concerns itself with events up to the

initiation of collapse, and does not explain how the standard laws of conservation of

momentum are not observed in the collapse itself. That is something a promising and

honest O-level student should declare to be a sticking point. It assumes a heat-

weakened core, and neglects that the core was the primary structure – the backbone

of the WTC buildings – rather than the external structure. “Global collapse ensued”,

we are told, but not how that global collapse itself proceeded.

Lofty assertions from a set of government stooges do not convince me, but apparently

that’s more than enough “evidence” for yourself.

Tony Blair has told the Chilcot Inquiry

that 9/11 is the key to everything in

understanding why he invaded Iraq.

Reinvestigate 9/11 agrees with this but

calls on Chilcot to examine suspicions

widespread in many countries, that in

some way 911 was an inside job. After a

series of devastating leaks in the US it

is no longer possible to claim that the

9/11 Commission satisfactorily explained

how, armed with plastic knives, 19

fanatics, several known to the CIA, were

able to evade arrest, take over and

accurately control large modern jets with considerable skill.

So far Chilcot has failed even to

acknowledge the submission sent to his

inquiry by Reinvestigate 911.

Ian Henshall, co-ordinator of

Reinvestigate 911, said:

“Chilcot has been charged to examine and

report on how we went to war over Iraq and its non-existent WMD. Many will find

it ironic or even dishonest if he now

bins our submission and takes the

official 9/11 story on trust.”

Chilcot’s brief starts in June 2001.

This was when, as the 911 Commission confirmed, the White House was turning a deaf ear to warnings of an imminent

attack within the US. After 9/11

officials deceitfully told the media

that the attacks had been unimaginable

and unforeseen.

Reinvestigate 9/11 calls on everyone of

goodwill to join our demand for a

real investigation into 9/11 and

supports those calling for a public

inquiry into the events of 7/7 in

London. There is an accumulation

of evidence which strongly suggests that all is not as it seems with the war on

terror. There are some very odd

coincidences and many who should not

have done have benefited from 9/11. For

instance we now know that Blair and the

neocons were planning to invade Iraq -

not after 9/11, but before.

Reinvestigate 911 says in the US and UK

there has been a worrying lack of

interest from the corporate media in

these issues, and has condemned the

BBC’s Conspiracy Files programmes on

9/11 as failing in its duty of

impartiality.

What angri and the disinformationists above don’t want you to factor into your 911 enquiries is the Zionist input into the atrocity.

This input leads all the way back to the Rothschilds whose agents have controlled Obama and all who came before him since the time when Colonel Edward House controlled Woodrow Wilson.

B’Nai B’rith,the Rothschild-sponsored fringe masonic group;ADL another offshoot;Mossad-the Rothschild intelligence service all played their part.Now these guys can pull a stunt like 911 at the drop of a hat and cover it up afterwards.

http://theupliftingcrane.wordpress.com/2009/11/22/the-zionist-elephant-in-the-room/

Funny how angri,Larry and the guy with crabs didn’t mention any of this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUatnbaNfEo

“Is there any evidence that any steel had been heated by the fire above 600 degrees F,

and even then for more than a short period? There were people clearly standing in

the gap created by the planes, so it’s unlikely there was a huge furnace raging away

in there.”

Can I ask where the photos are of the people standing in the gap created by the planes??? All I could see was smoke when I watched the news and all the other footage. Also how do you know there wasn’t a huge furnace raging away? Stop making unsubstantiated assumption, it isn’t very scientific. One point you should consider and this is from Barbara Lane.

Barbara Lane is the leading structural fire expert with Arup Engineers, the top engineering firm in the world, and she did a study on the WTC which concluded that:

“Arup?s analysis concluded that the effect of thermal expansion on the perimeter columns of the towers?”even without the airplane impact?”could have led to collapse due to the severity of fire occurring on multiple floors and the resulting thermal expansion of structural elements, particularly the floor systems. The Arup analysis conclusively illustrates that even with code-approved fire protection, a severe fire?”without aircraft impact?”could still lead to collapse.”

The people who you don’t believe are experts in their field, I know as i have worked with arup and i know how good they are, and have produced an indepth study on the collapse of the WTC.

The point is that nearly every conclusion from every analysis points to the fire and structural damage causing the building to collapse. Just because they came straight down doesn’t mean that law of physics was abandoned as it is all dependant on which section of the structure was damaged and when.

If you can’t get that into you head then I suggest you go and become a structural engineer and prove everyone wrong because at the moment all you are doing is ignoring the evidence that is in front of you.

“the disinformationists above don’t want you to factor into your 911 enquiries is the Zionist input into the atrocity.. ..the guy with crabs didn’t mention any of this?”

Because i cant judge it, im not a great reader of such subjects, and sorry, but yours comes partly at least from sites which dont discriminate between, eg. Niburu myths and presentable analysis.

I think the visible case that 911 was a false flag operation, maintained properly by groups like: http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org

- is only weakened when its linked to fogged out realms of secrecy and espionage.

—

“Arup?s analysis concluded that the effect of thermal expansion on the perimeter columns of the towers?”even without the airplane impact?” COULD have LED TO collapse…”

So, we read, it has been concluded that several impact and fire damaged floors COULD have failed. The following rapid over energetic collapse, is an entirely unexplained matter Chris.

Each of the towers took 10 to 15 seconds (at a stretch) to pulverise, throw off and plummet their mass completely after their contestable initial failures.

The simplest physical model of the North Tower, with no structural or frictional resistance takes at least 10 seconds to drop onto itself.

With a 20% loss of kinetic energy to smashing pulverisation and tearing steel, the time is 21 seconds.

The official reports dam themselves by not commenting on the energy and speed of the collapses -that may have followed structural failure at a crash site but are not explained by it.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/

The Missing Jolt: A Simple Refutation…

“In order to keep a sense of reality as we discuss NIST’s theory it may be useful to label the three interacting parts of the North Tower, as they are pictured by NIST, as RB-12+, DS-6 and RB-92. Where RB stands for Rigid Block, DS stands for Damaged Structure, and the numbers following the letters refer to the number of stories in each structure. The upper block comprised 12 stories of 99-110 as well as the roof structure with antenna and hat truss; the intermediate area was damaged by plane impact and fire and was 6 stories high (93-98 inclusive); and the lower block was rigid and comprised, in addition to subterranean levels, the first 92 stories of the building.

These designations actualy underestimate the contrast between RB-12+ and RB-92, because the latter was not only largely undamaged by fire but was more massive per story. It was also stronger: the towers columns tapered as they ascended. Yet the fall of RB-12+, we are supposed to beleive put a catastrophic end to DS-6 and RB-92.

What NIST essentially says, agreeing with Bazant, is that the lighter weaker part initally fell with a powerful jolt onto the heavier and stronger part, which could not withstand its momentum, and that this caused a progressive collapse to initiate smashing the lower block to bits all the way to the ground.”

The feild of Structural Engineering does not contain the only (or even necessarily -the best) methods to scrutinise these matters.

Great idea, thanks for this tip!

Tim Groves: “I heard explosions while the buildings were collapsing in the video I posted. Also, many ey witnesses are quoted as having heard explosions, some at the time of collapse, on that video. And there are other videos on YouTube in which explosions are audible at the time of the collapses.”

I don’t know which video you are talking about now, but the one that begins with the message claiming to be “unbunkable” is junk evidence. Why? Because it doesn’t prove what you are trying to.

Saying that explosions were heard on that day is meaningless, because what we are trying to determine is whether or not there was a controlled demolition and such explosions were consistent with that.

As I pointed out, the first explosion – and yes, I certainly agree that was an explosion – occurred after the Twin towers had fallen. It couldn’t have played any role in their destruction, then could it?

Why was it included here? Because Truther evidence is often cobbled together to be suggestive and not to true to the timeline or the events it is purporting to be about.

We also have a load of commentators saying, “explosion…bomb…van…carbomb…secondary explosions….etc…etc…” Again, this is made in a suggestive way without any attempt to analyse each claim.

For example, if we’re talking about a suspected carbomb, we have to have established the fact that it was packed with explosives. Has it been? I have never seen a Truther unearth that information.

We also have to have explained to us how a car bomb or some other “device” is part of a controlled demolition. But it hasn’t been. So, I wonder what that video is supposed to show.

Tim Groves: “Of course, there is none so deaf as he who will not hear. Are denying that there were any audible explosions or that none of the noises audible during the collapses was due to an explosion? And are you going to say that the entire burden of proof is on me to prove that some of those noises were explosions? How tiresome!”

The only people claiming here that the answer has been “conclusively proven” are the Truthers. You seconded that comment and then Glenn came into say that he had carried his own motion. If you think that something has been proven conclusively by shoddily and dishonestly put together videos made by some kid in his bedroom then you won’t mind a bit of skeptical quizzing of you now that you’ve declared victory.

But such hasty declarations of victory show just why you deserve the label Truthers (or even True Believers) while your claims to skepticism should be treated with, well, skepticism.

A skeptic looks for the best explanation, while Truthers look for the best story.

So, what are the best explanations for the eye-witness (or ear-witness) testimony of explosions?

Well, many of those do talk about what they thought were secondary explosions which came after each tower had collapsed. With the available material we can account for those. If you look at the NIST report of building 7, you’ll find there were burning cars some of which exploded (this can also be seen on the BBC’s Conspiracy Files… a whole row of burnt out cars) and also reports from news reporters who said there were vehicles which exploded. Presumably there would also be generators that could have exploded and some of those who worked at the Trade Center did report that they heard noises that sounded to them like generators exploding.

Ashley Banfield reported hearing explosions, but again, I believe these occurred after the collapse of the towers making it unlikely that they were the cause of the collapse of the towers. She also later reported that the fire department expected building seven to collapse and was on the scene when it did.

“I’m afraid I’m no more able to tell the difference between the sound of a bunch of explosions and the sound of a falling skyscraper or the sound of a heard of buffalo galloping across the praries than you are. But some people are quite skilled at such thing.”

“And you can discriminate between these different noises? When picked up by a camcorder mike 100 meters or more away in the middle of a noisy Manhatten major disaster? You’re ears are better than mine.”

Well which one is it? Are my ears no better or better?

I’m not necessarily talking about noises on a camcorder (although nice strawman). We also have my favourite reporter Ashley Banfield back again who was interviewing a woman with a baby when building seven collapsed. A controlled demolition would be, according to experts Ron Craig (whose points you have ignored) and Frazer and many others deafeningly loud and presumably quite sharp.

So, why is it that we have Ashley Banfield leisurely turning to see building seven collapsing as it rumbles to the ground instead of how I or you would react if a building was suddenly being destroyed by TNT. We quite clearly don’t seem to be listening to a controlled demolition. If you don’t believe me please listen again to the controlled demolitions on Implosion World and tell me that that sounds like a herd of stampeding buffalo. I’ll find it hard to believe.

Remember also that there have been several people who were quoted as saying they heard what sounds like explosions or even bombs. But lets imagine ourselves for a second or two a little better at recognizing metaphors and similes that Dylan Avery is.

Louie Caccioli, for example has said that People magazine misquoted him and wants to have nothing to do with Truthers. There were a group of people interviewed in hospital who mentioned “bombs” but were clearly quoted out of a context that would clarify things and there are many others who have since been used by Truthers when they were clearly explaining the aircraft impacts etc…

9/11 Mysteries also did this and a commentary of it showing all the distortions is available on Google video.

Looking at all this “evidence”, I really can’t quite believe that it has been made honestly or that it is believed in sincerely. Yet it does seem to be.

I find that strange.

Frank Legge: “The conclusion of the NIST report is that fire and aircraft damage caused the initiating event that brought down the towers. Within the body of their report however is the statement that no steel was found which had been heated above 600 oC.This arouses suspicion as such temperatures should not be sufficient to bring about collapse.”

I haven’t read the NIST report because at 10,000 pages long, I do have better things to do. But I always get a bit suspicious about sentences that have been cherry-picked as if they tell the whole story. Shame on me for treating Truthers with suspicion but they have well-earned themselves suspicion with their wildly dishonest claims.

The problem I have with Legge’s essay here is that he presents little evidence for saying that temperatures below 600 degree centigrade (yes, Glenn, it is centigrade not fahrenheit!) couldn’t bring the towers down. It seems to be simply an assertion.

I’ve shown the video before of the steel-framed building that collapsed all the way to the floor from fires which didn’t look especially hot (though I don’t claim to be an expert or to know how hot the building actually was). There were never any comments on that either.

Tim Groves: “Soba, the WTC towers were constructed of three-dimensional steel grids that would have resisted any tendency to collapse all the way and would have absorbed the energy of a collapse had it started, which it wouldn’t have.”

Again, I can only point you to what Leslie Robertson said about the Towers which was that if the load was only being supported by the floor of one of the stories then the floor would give way instantly (he clarified that by saying he meant instantly only insofar as we could perceive it).

Although NIST didn’t go beyond what intiated global collapse (Legge seems to be of the impression that NIST was supposed to show how they collapsed and used “papers” by Ross and Ryan etc… to show that the tower couldn’t pancake to the floor), Ryan Mackey has pointed out that the beams in the towers were bolted as opposed to welded, which would have made them comparatively weaker and accounts for their lack of resistance to 10 to 15 stories of steel and concrete.

Are Truthers saying that Leslie Robertson is lying? Or mistaken? May I ask what Mr Legge’s qualifications?

Crab: Tony Szamboti and Ryan Mackey debate his paper on Hardfire. I have posted links to this already.

A sticking point seemed to be that Szamboti refused to believe there was a tilt in the North tower prior to collapse. Mackey doesn’t understand how he can deny it as he finds it quite clear that it was there. I agree with Mackey.

It seems to be important as this was, I believe, an answer to Bazant whose own paper on the collapse of the towers, produced only a couple of days after the collapse itself offered THE POSSIBILITY of a pancake collapse, but which was written before Bazant had a lot of evidence to base it on. His suggested collapse was biased in favour of the towers NOT collapsing but has since been picked up as evidence by Truthers that a collapse was not possible.

(It is weird that Truthers think there is some kind of subtle subversion going on where there are all kinds of explicit messages delivered by the REAL culprits of the terrorist attack: “Hey! Larry Silverspoon admitted to demolishing the towers on TV! FEMA said that towers’ collapse was impossible! NIST said that it was impossible too! Ronald Dumsfeld said he shot the plane down! Some news guy said it was a cruise missile!” etc… etc… etc…)

Anyway, Crab, if you’ve got a lot of time to kill you may want to wade through this discussion of Tony Szamboti.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=140639

(Interestingly it starts with the suggestion that the Journal of 9/11 Studies is rather partial about which papers it accepts – i.e not those that follow the “official line”!)

I will say that I think Tony Szamboti is completely honest and genuinely believes what he is saying. But like all those who are genuine, I think he’s misapplying certain knowledge and getting too carried away trying to cling on to an apparent anomaly.

Oh, I’ll reprint that comment here now.

This is from “Dave Rogers” on the JREF forum talking about the Journal of 9/11 Studies (or JON-ES as he calls it here):

“Several months ago, Gregory Urich submitted a paper to JON-ES analysing the dynamics of the collapse, and demonstrating that the collapse times – and, clearly, the fact of collapse itself – were consistent with a gravity driven process. His paper was rejected on the grounds that JO-NES was ceasing publication, because they felt that no further evidence was necessary to demonstrate that the official story of 9/11 cannot stand up to scrutiny and must therefore be re-investigated. Please note that there was no criticism of Urich’s methodology, reasoning or conclusions; the paper was simply rejected. Now, however, it appears that JON-ES is not only still publishing, but still publishing on the specific subject of the dynamics of the Twin Towers collapses. Since they have neither published Urich’s paper nor, as far as I know, informed him of any adverse peer review result that would justify its rejection, it seems clear to me that their only possible motivation for its rejection is that it does not agree with their preferred conclusion concerning 9/11. I felt certain that this was already the case, but the subject matter of this latest paper places the matter beyond question. The Journal of 9/11 Studies is therefore shown to be no more than a propaganda organ of the 9/11 truth movement. Ironically, this active suppression of any dissenting opinion is exactly the behaviour of which all mainstream media are accused by the 9/11 truth movement, usually without justification.

The behaviour of this “journal” is reprehensible and repulsive.”

Oh God!

What am I talking about?

Tony Szamboti’s as credulous as the rest of you Truthers. He, like you, believes it because he wants to believe it.

Budgerigars trilling among themselves re-structural engineering etc. is merely a heavy-handed attempt by disinformationists to extinguish the thing they fear most.

Natural human curiosity.

They mean for you to be so frustrated by their meaningless debate that you’ll stay away from this site and be thoroughly turned off the idea of doing your own research.

The propagandists for the appallingly threadbare official 9/11 account are running around like the little Dutch boy trying to plug the dykes.

They know and are deeply apprehensive about the prospect of millions of people coming to the realisation that on 9/11 and the elite NWO plan generally they have been the victims of a none too subtle mind control operation.

Any researcher worth their salt will ultimately be led to the structures of power in New York,London and Tel Aviv who had the the form,means,motive and power to cover it up as the perpetrators of 9/11.

Conspiracists are ahead of the game quite simply because they are more vigilant about defending humanity against those who plan our enslavement.

9/11 propagandists like angrisober,Larry,technicolored are way behind the game and they know it.

Conspiracy’s gone mainstream,guys!

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=17295

Too late to plug the dykes you saps!

You’ll find no references to the Our Crowd NY banking elites,British sponsorship of the Dope Inc network and affiliated assassination bureau in 9/11 propagandist accounts.

They rely on the public not delving into the history of a network that has initiated assassination,economic take-down and war over the centuries that have followed Palmerston’s setting it up.

9/11 was a piece of cake for them.

Nice summary here:

http://thirdworldtraveller.com/Drug_War/DOPE_INC_part3.html

“Szamboti refused to believe there was a tilt in the North tower prior to collapse”

Whether the upper section of the North tower tilted or somersaulted before collapse doesnt alter its potential to smash through the rest of the tower below it at an impossible rate. Im not interested in Szamboti’s performance on in jib-jab debates, he has just co-authored a fine article which you prefered to immediately direct away from.

“Several months ago, Gregory Urich submitted a paper to JON-ES analysing the dynamics of the collapse…”

angrysoba, i can find no so such paper available online. JO-NES does host a paper of Urich’s which documents the towers mass and construction. It doesnt comment on the towers ability to coll-plode(sic) at inordinate speed.

If there is a paper by Urich that does, JO-NES are really as responsible for publishing it as the IPCC are for demonstrating sun spots are the true cause of global warming!

The oligarchy that enjoys the unique form of political control that comes from control of narcotics,dominant positioning in the precious metals and gems markets and above all its ability to bring a multi-hundred billion dollar cash flow to bear on the corruption of lagal organs and sovereign states shares an ancient Babylonian conception of humanity.

We are but “talking beasts”,creatures of appetite who can be manipulated by our experience of pain/pleasure inflicted via the leading institutions of international finance to do the bidding of the elite.

This conception of men as “talking beasts” rings true for the prattling DISINFO team here that includes Airhead Larry,angridickbrain,itchy crabs,teckni(can’t spell his own name)culer et al.

LOL!

crabs

Mindless,phoney debates on this thread with friends who have deserted you will,unfortunately for someone with your condition,not wash.

No-one is dumb enough to follow your disinformation trail.

Get Larry on the case!

Your last best hope thinks Bildeberger is a cake with squares in it,the Illuminati are a tourist attraction in Blackpool,England and thermite is a tropical insect of the Isoptera order weaponized by Al Ciada on 9/11!

Send for Mindless of Missouri!

“Can I ask where the photos are of the people standing in the gap created by the planes???”

There are several here: http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/wtc1_woman.html

paranewsguys – You cant just throw zionism, banking, bilderberg, masons, templars, illumaniti, harpp, chemtrails… and then 911 into a big thread and call it the hidden truth. Each subject needs focus to establish its details.

My comments might not be greatly mindful, but they arent phoney.

“Conspiracy’s gone mainstream,guys!

http://globalresearch.ca/”

NOW this just highlights the necessary over-arching delusion of 911 truthers. They have to believe that their conspiracy theories are now being accepted by the mainstream public (after years and years). Otherwise, they would have to face their own deviant beliefs. They have to continue to believe that this will happen any time now.

Someone above said “motion carried” merely because angrysoba and me did not get back to them on something irrelevant.

Sorry, nutters. The public will never view you as anything other than nutters. The anti-war movement has rejected you (I DARE you to show up at an anti-war rally with a “911 was an inside job” sign). Craig Murray does not believe in your 911 conspiracy theories.

It’s hard to believe the retarded idiocy of these peasants who can’t make basic logical inferences from obvious premises. It’s time to educate these shills and simpletons, yes 911 was an inside job duh!!! Obviously.

FACT 1: The north tower ACCELERATED through the lower section at a uniform 64% freefall, which means that the lower section exerted resistance equal to 36% of the weight of the upper section, Newton’s third law of equal and opposing forces states that the top block thus exerted 36% of it’s weight, which means it?s exerting much less force than when supported at rest. This means a large portion of the resistance was removed by explosives.

FACT 2: The top section of the North Tower almost fully disintegrated before the lower section started to explode downward, this disintegration would absorb any momentum and expelled the mass laterally, there was NO piledriver left to cause any kind of gravitational collapse!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xG2y50Wyys4

FACT3: The top section of the South Tower topples to an angle of 22 degrees. Basic physics shows that the shift in center of mass due to the angle means that any torque imparted by gravitational pressure on the lower section accelerates the rotation of the top mass. The base of the top section acting as a fulcrum.

The more gravitational pressure the top section provides, the more toppling would occur. discontinuation of the upper section’s toppling proves the removal of the lower section’s resistance, disproving gravity induced collapse and proving explosives.

An off centre, leaning mass CANNOT cause a symmetric collapse.

FACT 4: The symmetric, even collapse of WTC7 is IMPOSSIBLE without demolition as all structural supports must be removed simultaneously across each floor, and this repeated in sequence for each successive floor.this is impossible in a collapse resulting from structural or fire damage, as such causes result in organic uneven damage.

Even a slight integrity inequality ALWAYS leads to a messy uneven and in most cases partial collapse.

FACT 5: The 2.2 seconds of Freefall in WTC7 that NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) ADMITS to is IMPOSSIBLE without Controlled demolition as all structural supports must be removed ahead of the collapse front, otherwise ANY intact structural resistance would slow the collapse to a rate less than freefall.

Freefall means all the object’s gravitational potential is converted to motion, in order to crush tonnes of structural steel and concrete, a large part of that gravitational potential must be used, which would slow it down to a rate much less than freefall.

Verinage demolition is non-analagous to 911 for the following reasons:

The building materials were very flimsy and not reinforced anywhere near to the degree the towers were.

The whole Verinage buildings represent a small upper segment of the towers proportion-wise so there is no time for the net upward force to reduce the acceleration and absorb the momentum before it hits the ground, whereas in the towers you would see the (proportionately much less) momentum be absorbed rapidly. Also you DO see a slow down in the Verinage collapses unlike 911 where there is constant acceleration.

Also the twin towers suffered asymmetric damage making a symmetric collapse impossible, the verinage buildings were arranged to have the top block fall symmetrically.

Lastly, there is the possibility due to the nature of the Verinage collapses that demolitions or structural pre-weakening was used and it was part of a plan to support the official story. This however is speculation, the above physical evidence however is irrefutable proof of the fallacy in using Verinage to explain 911.

Controlled Demolition proven, you can all go home now

GAME OVER

Craig Murray, your foolishness and ignorance is legendary…………Cables???!!! WTF???!!!!

Ever heard of remote control detonation?!!! Lol!

We have the wheel now too in case you hadn’t notice those strange rolling circles on the bizarre metal beasts.

Zounds!

There is nothing more funny than British anti-Americanism.

juniper

You bin’at der gin,agin?

Check out this exhaustively detailed and fascinating piece on how the Naudet brothers filmed the first plane hitting the Towers.

The brothers were with the NY fire department making a film about their work.The firefighters were working on a drain,traffic had been stopped…….when out of the blue along came this plane no-one but these guys knew was coming!

http://www.spingola.com/jules_naudet.htm

So does everyone here include the firefighters in the list of saboteurs? This Freeborn person makes it explicit, but I imagine that Glenn and others likewise think that the NY firefighters must have been involved in planning 911.

“Folks say that the last time that Larry flew back into St Louis he was navigating for Charles Lindbergh!”

Doesn’t writing something like that show what a moron you are?

“9/11 & ‘War on Terrorism’”…

http://tinyurl.com/8r63h

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4izUFafakmg

Damn it,Larry yo’sore at me or somethin?

I know you musta gotten mighty tired when Mr Sabre goin’ thru all dem facs bout 911 an’all.Wuz justa tryna ‘plain ta ‘im you ain’t as sharp assa you once wuz,das’all.

Ain’t no damn reason for you an’me gwine fall out,tis’it now?

Jew take a look dat bitty dat Freeborn guy dun posted ’bout dem Naudet Brothers?

Hell,now dem dam ‘spiracy theorists tryna tell us we canna trus our own guvment now neither we can’t trus alluz own fire department!

Ain’t right,Larry.We oughtta get dat Craig Murray here rite now and tella him ’bout all dese ‘spiricists takin’ over dis here damn site!

I don’t care if we gotta git dat Craig guy outta bed in hissa dare kilt an’all,we gown do it,right Larry?

An’wassa dis ‘lluminati shit dey startin’ out wid now? I’s still trine get my hedda roun’ dam 911-so help me!

An’ wassa dese here Mosser Bros workin’outta dat Isreel you workin’ fo’?Yo sure shounna bin dancin’ all roun’ New York der day dey done dat 911.Das mighty ‘criminatin,Larry boy!

Say what youz me an angri,anna techni, an clark,an dat guy wid crabs gettin’ down town tonite so we can all plan de nexa move we gown do gainz dese ‘spiricists.

I really wanna make up wid yer,Larry,you hear me?

juniper,

Aren’t you a silly goose – the countrified type of American, who revels in ignorance and prays to Jesus everyday, is highly represented in the 911 Truth Movement. Truthers in the States are overwhelmingly Christian and religious as that (I would say well over 90%) and are otherwise idiotic. The vast majority of callers into Alex Jones are the type of redneck that you’re trying to ridicule.

So you’ve scored an own goal. Great job.

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. –Galileo Galilei, physicist and astronomer (1564-1642)

Right, but that does not make the pleas of the village idiot any more listenworthy.

I am the village idiot – and proud of it! 1st principles, man.

@Edo at January 29, 2010 3:08 PM: “Vincent Salandria was perhaps the first JFK researcher to come to believe that the truth of the assassination could be better approached by large-scale considerations than by focusing on details.”

Thanks, Edo, for your comment on Salandria (and thanks to Vronsky for noting it on a later thread). I looked him up and found this interesting bit about Salandria’s method:

“As I examined the evidence I was confronted with an unvarying pattern. Whenever evidence of a conspiracy emerged – and mountains of facts were supplied by the government for us to scrutinize – the government refused to act on that evidence. On the other hand, whenever any data emerged, no matter how thoroughly incredible, which could possibly be interpreted as supporting a lone assassin theory – the government invariably and with the greatest solemnity declared that such data proved the correctness of the lone assassin myth. That is not the earmark of an innocent, blundering government.

I posited that an innocent civilian government would have in an unbiased fashion accepted, made public, and protected all of the assassination data. An innocent government would have fairly evaluated the data irrespective of whether or not they supported a particular conclusion. An innocent civilian government would never have accepted an improbable explanation of data while other probable explanations were extant.”

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKsalandria.htm

Some Truther: “We have the wheel now too in case you hadn’t notice those strange rolling circles on the bizarre metal beasts.”

The delusions never cease!

Yep, you truly terrorise the websites of the tender-headed.

hawley_jr

http://tinyurl.com/y94dgx6

Sorry, hawley. Just WHAT has JFK got to do with 9/11?

Truthers here keep swooning over that quote and I just don’t see the relevance.

It’s only useful if you are a serial conspiracy theorist and think that massive conspiracies involving thousands are normal occurences.

But if you’re not convinced that JFK was killed in a massive conspiracy then it doesn’t really work as “evidence”.

JFK conspiracy theorists usually use just as much kooky evidence as Truthers then they whine about how they don’t want the burden of proof and insist on others simply drinking the Kool-aid.

Truthers on this site have already declared an inside job to have been conclusively proved and yet when asked to prove that there were explosives have utterly failed to turn up any evidence, complained about why they have to PROVE it then flounced off in a huff.

I’m still wondering how, when the planes hit the Towers, the explosives / incendiaries / superduperthermite didn’t immediately go off, and why, when it was hit by a Tower, the explosives / incendiaries / superduperthermite in Building 7 didn’t go off. This is a big problem if you’re a failed Mormon physicist or a slimy Danish pseudoscientist with crazy hair. Or should I say, unless you’re a failed Mormon physicist or a slimy Danish pseudoscientist with crazy hair.

“turn up any evidence”

Posted by: George Dutton at January 28, 2010 11:43 AM

“I’m still wondering how, when the planes hit the Towers, the explosives / incendiaries / superduperthermite didn’t immediately go off”

Well, obviously they were held in blast-resistant fireproof containers.

[/twoof]

http://orphia-nay.blogspot.com/2007/01/911-truther-credo.html

“Controlled Demolition proven, you can all go home now”

Well, this is apparently where things go for Truthers once they have satisfied themselves. They go home.

“The building materials were very flimsy and not reinforced anywhere near to the degree the towers were.”

Oh really? Then if the material being crushed is flimsy then how would equally flimsy material crush it? Isn’t this like trying to smash a polystyrene block with a polystyrene hammer? After all these are the “expirements” that Steven Jones with his concrete blocks and Richard Gage with his cardboard boxes want people to emulate to prove that this material can’t smash the same material.

In the towers a big heavy wieght smashed through a weak part of the structure and compromised the rest of the structure.

And the collapses were not “symmetrical”. There were bits and pieces falling off the towers and peeling down asymmetrically. Bits of the towers were still standing briefly after the rest had collapsed.

I can’t for the life of me understand what angry-noodle and larry-the-laugh get out of arguing so hotly in favour of the official “line”. As hawley_jr said above.

Makes no sense at all that private individuals would devote *all this time and effort* into telling us that it happened just as the US government said it did.

Defending official stories doesn’t even come into the category of hobbies, let alone obsessions. But these two are as devoted as Opus Dei members defending Catholicism.

“I can’t for the life of me understand what angry-noodle and larry-the-laugh get out of arguing so hotly in favour of the official “line”. As hawley_jr said above.”

I see. You’re upset because someone’s criticising your religion and you don’t understand why.

There are people who debunk ghosts and UFOs and other stuff like that.

Then there are people who debunk harebrained conspiracy theories.

I don’t think anyone here is saying you must always believe the “official line”. I think it should always be questioned. But when alternative hypotheses aren’t supported by evidence then they should be rejected.

It’s simply about evidence. None of the evidence I’ve seen points to an inside job and all the “structural engineering hypotheses” that Truthers come up with don’t seem convincing. Especially given that they come from people parroting dogma they’ve read about on the Internet rather than coming from anyone with any real knowledge in the subject.

Absolutely NO controlled demolition experts agree that the Twin Towers were brought down with explosives.

So it was an inside job then. I see.

Larry, weight does not equate to structural integrity, you can drop several tonnes of water on several tonnes of more water and it’s still going to follow the path of least resistance, laterally and multidirectionally.

Wrong Larry the collapses WERE symmetrical, in such tall structures if they were asymmetric the imbalance would be accumulative and deflected away from the tower early on, in order to collapse all the way to the ground it has to be perfectly symmetric, which is impossible from the asymmetric damage.

Really Larry I went over all this. Watch the footage, the south tower top section leans to an angle of 22 degrees, the lower section then explodes downward perfectly symmetrically (watch the collapse front in the video). This is impossible from an asymmetric leaning off centre mass, basic physics.

Read my previous posts….slowly…then watch the footage of the demolitions then you’ll see I’m right.

Jaded wrote: So it was an inside job then. I see.”

I will concede one thing to the truth movement. Your recruiting efforts will indeed have some success. Every year, there are all sorts of hate-filled dickless Brits and narcissistic empty-headed Americans aging into a period of extreme gullibility in their lives. So 911 Truth will remain a force, although it will become increasingly pathetic.

Forget about converting people with brains. Won’t happen.

I believe you know that you are like an amoeba compared to me. I understand you can’t admit it though. It’s ok Lamby. No worries chum.

Jaded, you don’t seem to understand that your blatant racist anti-Semitism has done more to discredit truthy truthers than I could ever match.

You keep believing that Lamby, you keep believing that. As for racist accusations, I believe the previous thread went very quiet after I asked for quotes. Just like this one will…

@Saber

In many years I have never read such fanatical bullshit as you have posted here, you are really deluded. Do you live on a small farm in Montana surrounded by guns and underground bunkers ? Please get a life !

angri,Frazer and Larry and all your other pseudonyms have been argued off the floor.

It’s over guys.

You’re in denial re-the patent complicity of your own government in the atrocity.You’re in denial re-your intellectually challenged position on this,not to mention all the other topics on which you post and make complete arses of yourselves.

You’re now just turning yourselves into an utter laughing stock! It’s as patently obvious you guys are sharing a brain cell as the fact that 9/11 was an inside job!

“I see. You’re upset because someone’s criticising your religion and you don’t understand why.”

–angrynoodle

I have already said that I tend to agree with Craig. Get your facts straight before you shoot your mouth off.

And tell us why you or anyone else would spend hours, nay, days and days, defending the official line — about anything. It’s beyond reason.

“There are people who debunk ghosts and UFOs and other stuff like that.”

To the extent that you and Larry do here? You must be kidding me. You’re a joke, the pair of you. Nothing but a joke.

Hell Larry,jussa had Massa Sunstein roun’ here ‘gain.

Massa Sun says you anna angri,an Clark,techni,Frazer bin taken offa the disinfo team.

He say you no damn good,Larry and yawl jusssa makin’ tings mighty sight worsa thanna they was befo’.He say cossa you now-E’BODY KNOW 911 WASSA A INSIDE JOB!

Massa Sunstein he say he want yawl to jus shutta yourself up cos he done foun’ hisself another disinfo team thassa got them some brain cells betweena dem.

Larry,why don yoy jussa listen to Massa Sunstein an’ Massa Steelback cossa the game sure is up by now!

P.S. I’s lookin’ affer yo’wife now cos I jus don’ like wassa this’all doin’to ‘er.Sure ain’t fair,Larry.

That’s great news Juniper?

Enjoy, juniper.

“To the extent that you and Larry do here? You must be kidding me. You’re a joke, the pair of you. Nothing but a joke.”

Conspiracy theorist stomps her feet!

That’s the best you can do in response to someone who agrees with Craig?

Poor you, angrynoodle. You’ve completely run out of answers.

dreoilin, I’ve no idea what your point is. Are you just here on this thread to declare your non-interest in the topic?

Most of us know that it was the likes of angrisober,Larry,crab,technicolor et al who forced Craig into opening this 9/11 thread.

They were obsessively bringing up the topic in every thread on the site.

When they got their 9/11 thread it was beholden on them to fight their corner and make their case.

They have proved signally unequal to the task to put it mildly.

In fact I think juniper for all his linguistic shortcomings has it right.

It’s thanks to Larry,angrisoba et al that everybody now knows that 9/11 was indeed an inside job!

Once again tungsten and the crew of clowns don’t cite anything specific.

You children – it’s not enough to REALLY REALLY want 911 to be an inside job. You have to come up with some proof.

Can anyone tell me why the superduperthermite did not ignite when the planes struck the buildings?

“It’s thanks to Larry,angrisoba et al that everybody now knows that 9/11 was indeed an inside job!”

Do I really need to point this out again? EVEN THE ANTI-WAR MOVEMENT WANTS NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU IDIOTS.

“It’s thanks to Larry,angrisoba et al that everybody now knows that 9/11 was indeed an inside job!”

Probably best not to get too triumphant yet, still lots of work to be done. One of the distinguishing features of 911 is the absence of key evidence, either missing or destroyed and, before a proper independent inquiry, neither side can claim conclusive victory.

Although the angrylarrys are clearly most comfortable handing out insults than discussing evidence, they do sometimes make a fair point. Larry’s comment for instance that “I’m still wondering how, when the planes hit the Towers, the explosives / incendiaries / superduperthermite didn’t immediately go off” is a reasonable one.

The Naudet Brothers have been mentioned and their clip of AA11 hitting WTC1 – ‘The Fireman’s Video’ – is worth looking at it some detail. It is full of clues. It appears to show a small plane with no engines on its wings, just like all the eyewitnesses said. The impact creates a much smaller fireball than did the second plane, which is interesting given that both planes should have had roughly the same amount of fuel on board. And it clearly shows a separate explosion taking place in the adjacent wall of the building, which might lead one to speculate that there were pre-planted explosives to create some of the impact damage. Look out for the anomalous pattern of mini explosions as the plane strikes and the interesting flash just prior to impact.

It’s really worth checking out, particularly in slow motion.

“It appears to show a small plane with no engines on its wings, just like all the eyewitnesses said.”

No, not all the eyewitnesses said that. Maybe 3 did. Who knows. It certainly wasn’t all.

MJ, so you know, if you start pushing that story, you start violating truther pseudo-orthodoxy, and you might not be welcomed at their sparsely populated meetings.

“No, not all the eyewitnesses said that. Maybe 3 did”.

No eyewitnesses said they saw a passenger jet.

“if you start pushing that story, you start violating truther pseudo-orthodoxy”

I don’t care. I’m only interested in the evidence.

I try not to link to ‘truther’ sites but the following article is interesting because it is the only one that attempts an analysis of some other other aspects of the first plane:

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/spencer03.htm

anon – “In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. –Galileo Galilei”

This appears to be more like a religion.

“Larry’s comment for instance that “I’m still wondering how, when the planes hit the Towers, the explosives / incendiaries / superduperthermite didn’t immediately go off” is a reasonable one.”

I dont think so, bombs arent neccessarily too sensitive (except when made to be), consider when aerial bombs fail to explode because they arent properly armed, despite impacting targets at 100s of mph.

Even if a plane where to have taken out a device or two in the crash area, with the lack of footage of the first strike and fireball spectacle of the second, how visible need it be?

“The Naudet Brothers have been mentioned and their clip of AA11 hitting WTC1 – ‘The Fireman’s Video’ ”

The problem with this evidence is it is blurred and compressed to hell. Its of some speculative interest to people openly reviewing the events, but can always be attacked as an example of “seeing what you want to see” by believers.

“No eyewitnesses said they saw a passenger jet.”

Do the other truthers hear this? Isn’t this an example of the crazy that you’ve let in to your big tent?

MJ, this is what the author of what you think is evidence also believes:

“… but I’ll tell you what I see. Immediately before the plane strikes it fires a missile that blows a hole in the building’s fa?ade. This is the cause of that brief flash. The plane then begins to disappear neatly into this hole, leaving no wing impressions. Just before it disappears however it fires two more missiles from somewhere near its tail. One goes to the left, one to the right (and up a bit) and it is the blast holes from these three separate missiles that form the great gash across the building.”

Even by truther standards, this is crazy.

Larry, I repeat: no eyewitnesses said they saw a passenger jet.

I don’t think your quote is from the article I linked to. In the article I linked to his comments about FEMA’s diagrammatic rendition of the scar are spot on – you can test it yourself. Also what he says about the seismic records is interesting.

“The problem with this evidence is it is blurred and compressed to hell”

True, but the explosion in the adjacent wall is clear enough.

MJ, wrong; a friend of mine was standing on top of his brownstone in Brooklyn and saw the second plane – a passenger jet – fly in.

Does the photographic evidence not work for you?

“I don’t think your quote is from the article I linked to.”

Right, but the Spencer guy is a crazy person who believes that missiles shot from the plane. In fact, that’s one of his central beliefs.

No-one doubts the second plane, there are lots of pictures. I’m talking about AA11, the first plane.

“the Spencer guy is a crazy person who believes that missiles shot from the plane”

He may be wrong about that. I was inviting you to read another, more forensic, articles of his. His comments can be easily verified.

Here are some, among many, eyewitness accounts. Some don’t mention “passenger” plane, but that’s because the world is not out to prove or disprove your conspiracy within a conspiracy.

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/whattheysaw%3Aeyewitnessaccountsofthenycai

“His comments can be easily verified.”

Nope, it’s just a bunch of babble. Apparently this guy doesn’t even exist, let alone have any qualifications.

So let me get this straight:

1. The first plane WAS NOT a passenger plane;

2. The second plane WAS a passenger plane.

Why the hell would the Men in Black do it that way?

The Men wear white.

“Here are some, among many, eyewitness accounts”

Thanks for those Larry. I suppose I was referring to those eyewitnesses who were interviewed by TV/radio immediately after the event and before the official account was in circulation. None of these is quoted on your link, but they give a rather different picture. It seems that an extraordinary number of senior fire department officials were in the vicinity time, but were not interviewed.

You may recall that even General Myers acknowledged that the early reports were of a small plane.

“His comments can be easily verified.”

Of course they can. All you need is a copy of FEMA’s Building Performance report.

“apparently this guy doesn’t even exist”

The article must have written itself then. Either way it makes some important observations. The only qualification you need is to be able to count. Obviously FEMA didn’t make the grade.

Hell,Larry!

Yo’an Robinson,angri,and dat guy wid crabs still all makin’ complete arses yo’sels bout dat 911 ting?

You no Massa Sunstein tol’yawl yo makin’tings mighty far sight worser dan dey was before.All da people down here in Missouri know yo’makin’complete arses yoursel’

Issa only some debate you doggone got whipped in.Ebody know likes a Massa Sabre,Steelback,Freeborn and tungsten done made yawl look a bunch a fools.Yawl oughta juss cut yo’losses an jussa pack up an’come home now.Y’aint never spoke one word a sense bout thissa ting anyways.

Aint no folks down here in Missouri gon’tank ya fur sendin’their boys down that Iraq and dem otter places on backa load o’ol lies.Our boys jussa get their arses blown to bits for bunch a mean drug peddlers and bankers inna New York and Lundun!

Now you and angri an’ol’crab tell dem ‘spiricists yawl bout had nuff an’ yo gwine pack up now!

P.S. I’s still havin’ a fine time wid yer wife an’all.We both unstan if yo wanna carry on makin arse yo’sel!

“bombs arent neccessarily too sensitive (except when made to be”

crab: yes, true of bombs, which need detonators, but there is an issue with thermite, which needs only ignition.

George,

Thanks for that link. Another nail in the coffin of truth.

“February 21, 2006

U.S. Reclassifies Many Documents in Secret Review

By SCOTT SHANE

WASHINGTON, Feb. 20 ?” In a seven-year-old secret program at the National Archives, intelligence agencies have been removing from public access thousands of historical documents that were available for years, including some already published by the State Department and others photocopied years ago by private historians.

The restoration of classified status to more than 55,000 previously declassified pages began in 1999, when the Central Intelligence Agency and five other agencies objected to what they saw as a hasty release of sensitive information after a 1995 declassification order signed by President Bill Clinton. It accelerated after the Bush administration took office and especially after the 2001 terrorist attacks, according to archives records.”

And a commenter quotes from Deep Politics Quarterly:

“But heres the catch: if you are a historian/researcher and possess copies of the reclassified documents, even though you haven’t been told what they were (or to return them) you could find yourself in violation of federal statutes that prohibit individuals from being in possession of “secret” material. You could face Federal Felony charges for possession of secret documents that you obtained in a totally legal manner.”

This seems the appropriate place for this link;

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2010/02/02/who-was-that-well-dressed-man/

Wow – breaking news from 4 years ago!!!!! In those 4 years, has anyone faced a felony charge for possessing a reclassified document? That sorta helps defeat your claims of conspiracy. Own goal!!!!!

Jumpin Juniper!

Oh my gosh!! Larry nailed everyone!!!!

“George Galloway talks to this American 9/11 expert, who gives a bunch of conspiracy theories regarding 9/11. Part 1-4 was originally broadcasted on 17th April 2009.”…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78P6-LHfKo8

Ties up with previous link;

http://www.christopherketcham.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/Final%20PDF%20of%20CounterPunch%20article%20re%20Israelis%2001-29-07.pdf

I don’t have time to listen to Galloway and a crazy American.

But just to note that Galloway doesn’t believe in the silliness of 911 conspiracy nutters.

!!Jumpin Jack Flash!!

Crab: “Even if a plane where to have taken out a device or two in the crash area, with the lack of footage of the first strike and fireball spectacle of the second, how visible need it be?”

Take out a device or two? Those planes took out many stories each and created a burning hole in the side of the building.

Are all those explosives not rigged up to create a chain reaction of exlosions or were each and every one of the hundreds or thousands of explosives that CTers estimate to have been there detonated remotely?

MJ makes a perfectly good point that the superduperloopy thermite should have been ignited by such a fireball and we still have the problem of no sounds of explosives.

The controlled demolition is looking shakier than ever, Truthers!

“Thanks for those Larry. I suppose I was referring to those eyewitnesses who were interviewed by TV/radio immediately after the event and before the official account was in circulation. None of these is quoted on your link, but they give a rather different picture. It seems that an extraordinary number of senior fire department officials were in the vicinity time, but were not interviewed.

You may recall that even General Myers acknowledged that the early reports were of a small plane.”

MJ, what the blithering Hell is this supposed to be about?

What point would there have been flying a small plane into the first tower and a passenger plane into the second?

Is this a red-herring stealth attack on the “official story”?

Do you not think that it could be explained by “expectation bias”? Someone says a plane flew into the World Trade Center. People hearing this will assume it was a small plane because passener jets tend not to do that. Even one person recording the second strike yelled, “Oh My God! What a coincidence!”

It wasn’t because an “official story” hadn’t circulated until then it was because few people immediately assumed it was a terrorist attack.

“MJ makes a perfectly good point that the superduperloopy thermite should have been ignited by such a fireball and we still have the problem of no sounds of explosives.”

Quoting myself here to say that obviously Larry made the point about the thermite but MJ agreed.

It’s funny that with crab saying the explosives going off could have been concealed by the initial fireball and Tim Groves saying the sounds of the explosions were masked by the clatter of the falling towers (and maybe a bit of traffic) we’re left with no more evidence for explosives than Carl Sagan’s friend’s dragon in his garage. Saying that all the evidence seems to have been masked by other phenomena which we do know was there is the same as saying that we have no evidence.

So, when all is said and done, and on balance, it certainly looks like 9/11 was an inside job then.

911 truthers cannot answer the questions presented, and they cannot tell us when their conspiracy theories will be accepted by the antiwar movement.

911 truthers are increasingly ridiculous.

Larry has been thoroughly discredited on this thread. Everyone should ignore his insane ramblings.