The 9/11 Post 2997

Having complained of people posting off topic, it seems a reasonable solution to give an opportunity for people to discuss the topics I am banning from other threads – of which 9/11 seems the most popular.

I do not believe that the US government, or any of its agencies, were responsible for 9/11. It would just need too many people to be involved. Someone would have objected. There are some strange and dangerous people in America, but not in sufficient concentration for this one. They couldn’t even keep Watergate quiet, and that was a small group. Any group I can think of – even Blackwater – would contain operatives with scruples about blowing up New York. They may be sadly ready to kill people in poor countries, but Americans en masse? Somebody would say it wasn’t a good idea.

I asked a friend in the construction industry what it would take to demolish the twin towers. He replied nine months, 80 men, and 12 miles of cabling. The notion that a small team at night could plant sufficient explosives embedded at key points, is laughable.

The forces of the aircraft impacts must have been amazingly high. I have no difficulty imagining they would bring down the building. As for WTC 7, again the kinetic energy of the collapse of the twin towers must be immense.

I admit to a private speculation about WTC7. Unfortunately in construction it is extremely common for contractors not to fix or install properly all the expensive girders, ties and rebar that are supposed to be enclosed in the concrete. Supervising contractors and municipal inspectors can be corrupt. I recall vividly that in London some years ago a tragedy occurred when a simple gas oven explosion brought down the whole side of a tower block.

The inquiry found that the building contractor had simply omitted the ties that bound the girders at the corners, all encased in concrete. If a gas oven had not blown up, nobody would have found out. Buildings I strongly suspect are very often not as strong as they are supposed to be, with contractors skimping on apparently redundant protection. The sort of sordid thing you might not want too deeply investigated in the event of a national tragedy.

Precisely what happened at the Pentagon I am less sure. There is not the conclusive film and photographic evidence that there is for New York. I am particularly puzzled by the much more skilled feat of flying that would be required to hit a building virtually at ground level, in an urban area, after a lamppost clipping route – very hard to see how a non-professional pilot did that. But I can think of a number of possible scenarios where the official explanation is not quite the whole truth on the Pentagon, but which do not necessitate a belief that the US government or Dick Cheney was behind the attack.

In my view the real scandal of 9/11 was that it was blowback – the product of a malignant terrorist agency whose origins lay in CIA funding and provision. Also blowback in a more general sense that it was spawned in the nasty theocratic dictatorship of Saudi Arabia which is so close to the US and to the Bush dynasty in particular. As with almost all terrorist activity, I do not rule out any point on the whole spectrum of surveillance, penetration and agent provocateur activity by any number of possible actors.

But was 9/11 false flag and controlled demolition? No, I think not.

(Now I have given full opportunity to discuss 9/11 here, any further references on other threads will be instantly deleted).

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

2,997 thoughts on “The 9/11 Post

1 90 91 92
  • Clark

    Mog, I’m sorry I got annoyed yesterday. There are many contributory factors to this. As someone who comments under a verifiable real identity, I’m fed up with dealing with anonymous Internet entities; after all, “mog” could be a sock for any one of many handles I’ve tried to honestly communicate with here, or even someone I’ve met in person. I was feeling very ill; I’m a little better at present. But most specific to your comment that annoyed me, I don’t like being ignored and then as a consequence misrepresented (assuming it wasn’t a deliberate ploy to push some government, corporation or country’s agenda) because it’s disrespectful and doesn’t treat me as your equal.

    I’ll fill in some detail for you. When I first encountered claims of the impossibility of the collapses based on physics, I took them very seriously. I basically accepted them, because I find classical physics pretty simple and it didn’t occur to me that anyone would publish erroneous claims – it seemed such a foolish thing to do, since physics is pretty rigorous. So I started parroting the arguments such as “no steel framed building ever having collapsed” etc. etc.

    Then Angrysoba brought TomK to this thread and, in his patronising, sporadic and infuriating manner, he started posting actual physical arguments. His politics seemed pretty much the opposite of my own, but as he said and as I agree, science and rationality are science and rationality; you don’t get Right-wing and Left-wing versions of physical constants, and the rightness or wrongness of any given physical argument is independent of your political opinions.

    He destroyed many of the controlled demolition hypotheses; simply wiped the floor with them using simple physical arguments; arguments I could verify for myself. He got something wrong that was within one of my own fields of technical experience (sound engineering); I pointed this out and he lost his temper with me. But so what? All it proved was that he was human and fallible like myself.

    TomK had empowered me. He had cut through the myriad rhetorical arguments that plague discussion of the collapses of the WTC buildings, diminishing and neutralising the fog of emotionality that had come to obscure then from my rationality. So I discarded the matter of “which side” any particular argument strengthened, took some deep breaths, and started watching the collapse videos over and over again, this time asking myself simple questions about the physical processes recorded.

    I saw no flashes – apart from the ejected gouts of flame from the burning floors as the top sections began to fall, as would be expected. I saw nothing much ejected above the horizontal – an acquaintance drew my attention to one object that changed direction in mid-air, but it was the only such instance. I heard no sequenced explosions – except on one video, contradicted by many others – and that proved that at least some 9/11 Truthers were prepared to be 9/11 Liars, 9/11 Fraudsters – all for a good cause, I’m sure…

    With my suspicion now raised I saw more and more misrepresentation that I’d apparently been turning a blind eye to, presumably unconsciously, to reinforce the position I’d held. I started to learn something about MYSELF, that I wasn’t above mangling the evidence. My scepticism, including scepticism of my own thinking, started to develop and grow.

    I started to notice that the problem of misrepresentation was ubiquitous. I noticed selective quotations, more and more of them. Ridicule attempting to discredit inconvenient but valid arguments. Selective editing of videos, both of physical evidence and of interviews etc. Emotive arguments, superficially convincing but with minimal physical validity and/or relevance.

    More recently I’ve become more aware of the groupthink, and the aggressive, manipulative techniques used to maintain conformity. The “no-planer” Exexpat started playing to the gallery, insinuating to other readers that I was using techniques including “forum sliding” to maintain the 9/11 cover-up. Think what you like, but I know I’m not deliberately pushing disinformation. I tried to be reasonable with Exexpat but to no avail. I eventually lost my temper and called him some nasty names. At this he backed down, but to my amazement Node leaped in said I owed Exexpat an apology. Apparently, it’s OK for Exexpat to accuse me of being accessory to mass murder, but I’m bang out of order unless I take it lying down. Glenn leaped in, listing half a dozen anomalies relating to airport security, the behaviour of NORAD etc., as if these matters had any bearing on building collapses and ridiculing me as though my mind was unreasonably closed.

    And so I learned the unwritten rule of the 9/11 “Truth” movement (it has little to do with truth) – anyone may advance any whacky theory takes their fancy; whatever, it doesn’t matter what – the aircraft were CGI graphics or projected holograms, no one was killed in the Towers, random people have been assassinated to silence them, all the videos on YouTube are fake, explosions anywhere at any time are evidence of controlled demolition, the Towers were brought down by nuclear bombs or energy weapons in orbit, aircraft normally bounce off buildings – anything so long as it contradicts the “official story”, but no one can subject any of them to critical scrutiny or They Will Be Drummed Out Of The Brownies. That’s essentially no different from football hooliganism and far-Right mob behaviour, where everyone has to agree that the Other, the Designated Enemy are Utter Scum and everyone in Our Gang is Right No Matter What – just like “My Country Right or Wrong”.

    So sometimes I get very down, seeing no future, convinced that human nature damns us all to war, persecution, the collapse of society and near-term extinction; that our propensity to prejudice and groupthink will obscure the physical crises that our species is rapidly bringing upon itself.

    I hope that puts my exasperation in context.

  • Clark

    lysias, where do you think Bush fitted into all this? His reputation for stupidity is legendary, so I assume he was basically used. Not that he’d necessarily object to the plan or whatever, but he just doesn’t seem reliable enough to be an “insider” – he’d leak too easily.

  • glenn_uk

    Clark: I appreciate you might feel exasperated, all of us do to varying extents, at different times to different degrees. Nevertheless, I’m not sure you’re being entirely fair in your synopsis of this entire subject on 10/7/16.

    You appear to characterise 9/11 sceptics as credulous fools, who buy into any argument – or indeed all of them – despite their manifest contradictions. Very much like a religious delusion, in other words – anyone, of any “faith” whatsoever – is guilty of exactly the sort of thinking you decry. Let’s dismiss about 80% of the population, then, from even having anything worth considering for a moment.


    TomK was a complete arse. His primary method of argument was proof by authority – even though he was exceedingly coy about what authority that might happen to be, exactly.

    His next step, when he finally figured out how to use a message board, and work out who he was replying to (instead of just insulting them), was to provide simplistic physics experiments in order to prove how stupid everyone was.

    It just didn’t wash. He made a fool of himself.

    You – yourself – pointed out to him how he’d done his argument a fair bit of harm, if you recall. Those were pretty much your exact words.


    Clark, I don’t believe that holograms were employed, and you were there when I dismissed such claims on this thread. You paint with a rather broad brush, if you don’t mind my saying so.

    What I don’t have time to do, is publish a paper proving my point – and nothing less would apparently do, and it had better be produced double-quick in order to satisfy you. Too much of an ordeal, and I’ve got plenty of other stuff going on. We all have.

    Does the Official Story of the JFK assassination satisfy you? Why not? Let’s drill into that part you think isn’t true. Or else admit it – you’re a fraud. You’ve got nothing – accept it, you’re a bit delusional, and probably not very honest.

    If you don’t like that sort of conversation, perhaps you’ll understand why I didn’t like it either – from you.

    I didn’t jump to any conclusion about “9/11”, but became gradually aware that the Official Story simply didn’t hold. So something else happened, what was it, and why?

    I’m sorry you raised my name just before a bunch of stuff you’d concluded, relating to delusions and lies, “whacky theories” and so on, when you know full well that I’ve vociferously argued against these exact same things. Why do you want to link me with positions you surely know I do not support?

    Bit of a disappointing one this, Clark. Hope we can clear things up in due course.

    • Clark

      First I should clarify that I find the “mainstream position(s)” just as bad – simplistic groupthink anchored on rhetoric or soundbites. It’s the near total lack of critical thinking that gets me down; if the “mainstream” positions withstood critical thought obviously I’d be feeling less isolated. So the “accept pre-rigged demolition or you must believe the official narrative” meme I find particularly depressing. In the mainstream, they don’t even realise that the official story is based largely upon confessions forced under waterboarding and other torture.

      Glenn, that’s how you drew my criticism, with this comment here:

      See how you depict it as unreasonable to not suspect pre-rigged explosives, because of a load of unrelated things that add not a jot to the explosives theory? You could invent any fictitious event and insist that it must have happened, and no one can say otherwise because the authorities were denying everything that day.

      Nothing else depended upon pre-rigged explosives, did it? Not like the passenger flights. If they hadn’t been diverted then the major events couldn’t have occurred without some kind of fake to replace them. Whereas, even if the Towers had stood it would have still been full-on atrocity, and there’s no later part of the attack, or the responses, that couldn’t have occurred had the Towers not collapsed. There’s no part of the plot, if plot there be, that requires the collapses of the Towers. It seems to me that the question of the Towers’ collapses is logically separate from the earlier events. So to entertain any suspicion, surely we require either evidence for explosive destruction, or evidence against natural collapse.

      But in any case, aren’t pre-rigged explosives a considerably higher score than the “double-six” of the two nearly identical Towers, damaged in very similar ways, each collapsing in a similar manner? Even the major difference is consistent with the natural collapse hypothesis, in that the Tower with the greater weight above the damaged zone stood for the less time after impact.

      See, the problem is always Building 7. The human mind can’t help wondering “where does Building 7 fit into all this?”. Its collapse looks so much like a controlled demolition, its collapse was reported twenty minutes early, Silverstein said he ordered “pull it” and it literally looked like it was pulled core-first into its own basement. It really couldn’t be spookier, and yet with supreme irony, Building 7 is in a very specific sense absolutely a non-issue. It wasn’t iconic, it wasn’t a target, its collapse killed no one and it outlasted its uncontrolled fire specification by over three hours, I think. Like an insanely talented court jester’s terrifying act which seen in hindsight actually threatened no one, and even almost cleaned up after itself.

      Of course, Building 7 raises suspicions that the Towers were rigged with explosives. But logically, the collapse of Building 7 has no bearing upon the earlier collapses of the Twin Towers, does it? That Building 7 suffered whatever strange fate it did, makes absolutely no difference to whether the Towers would fail at the damage zones or not. Indeed, Building 7 fell considerably later than the Twin Towers – how would our impressions regarding the Towers be altered if Building 7 hadn’t done what it did? I must say it’s one of the finest conundrums ever!

      Glenn, have you considered the collapse scenario for the Twin Towers that I’ve been describing? Have you tried running it through in your mind? I’ll repeat it again or clarify if necessary, but I would like to discuss it. I’ve been watching collapse videos again, and more and more I keep thinking that those towers were unsafe, cascade failures waiting to happen. We’ve heard that their destruction was rather convenient to the elite, that they were a disposal liability because of asbestos, but maybe that wasn’t their only problem.

    • Clark

      Glenn, I don’t expect you to publish a physics or mechanical engineering paper – of course not. However, I do expect you to link to any that you believe to be credible.

      TomK acted the ass (I’ll use the US colloquialism) but so what? TomK’s personality makes no difference to the physical dynamics of the collapses (as he himself correctly pointed out). TomK pointed out a number of other principles that are vital to any physical analysis. “Spherical cow”, or oversimplification (eg, Chandler’s paper I linked to recently). “Lose the geometry, lose the building”. Very fast transfer of load from failing components to adjacent components. A visible surface can outpace g if acted upon by structure behind.

      I haven’t even come to agree with TomK since his visit. He had no criticism of the Towers nor the investigation into their collapses, whereas I suspect that the design was vulnerable, that the construction possibly didn’t meet the design specification, and that the investigations concealed this.

      Many proponents of pre-rigged explosives have quoted essentially empty “physics rhetoric” at me. TomK is the ONLY commenter to have presented actual physical arguments, and even occasionally put some numbers to them. He came alone into a hostile comments section and presented his arguments. For that he deserves respect, despite his sometimes condescending manner which, given people’s irrational attachment to and often aggressive defence of demolition theories, I think is understandable.

  • Clark

    Glenn, oh fuck. The corners, where all the “explosive ejections” are seen. It’s fucking obvious. The squares of floor making up the corners were only supported by actual load-bearing uprights on two sides and the opposing corner. I know I’m abstracting but it’s an obvious weakness, isn’t it? Why didn’t I see it before?

    • Clark

      I mean that at the corners the floor was only supported along the two sides that meet at the outer corner of the perimeter wall. The opposing corner reached the corner of the core.

      The other mid-sections of floor were supported between two parallel supports; the core on the inside and the perimeter wall on the outside.

      The longest floor spans occurred between the corners of the core and the corresponding corners of the perimeter wall. I suppose this distance would have been about the square root of two times the distance between the parallel supports in the mid sections, or do it better with the actual dimensions and Pythagoras. But those lightweight floors were about 40% more vulnerable there, yes?

      • glenn_uk

        The external vertical bars were more decorative than for support function, as I recall. Otherwise, why would they have been put on after the rest of the structure was complete? It would be a precarious job indeed to construct such a mighty building where you put the major supports on last!

        Please don’t expect me to give 24×7 attention to this thread, though. I have extremely limited time, no offence meant whatsoever.

      • Clark

        If there was something decorative, no matter; the vertical support for all the floors came from the core and the perimeter – “a tube within a tube”, in plan or cross-section a smaller rectangle within a larger rectangle. Looking straight down on the structure, the floors span across between inner and outer, but they’re only actually supported at those rectangles.

  • Clark

    We have a bias of thought; when we walk around on a floor that feels solid, it seems like the ground, solid matter beneath all the way down. It’s funny to think of being suspended nearly half a kilometre up, and that six inches beneath your feet is empty air…

  • Clark

    Mog, I’ve spent ages looking for proper physical arguments on demolition theory sites. If you link me something specific that you think makes sense I’ll critique it as best I can. But I’ve really never found anything that was valid concerning the Twin Towers. The period of free-fall of Building 7 is valid (though not fully conclusive) evidence for demolition, but for the Towers, well either could have burnt out without its top section starting to fall, but given that they did fall the videos seem consistent with the way I’d expect such structures to collapse under gravity.

    I’d be far more interested to read more about another point you raised:

    “It is worth noting that the scientific community as a whole is going through something of a crisis at the moment due to the unearthing of prevalent fraud perpetrated for career advancement”

    • charles drake

      the arts projects the b thing and gelatine not to mention arts groups mentioned in the fox post 911 news reports 4 reports by
      carl cameron are of great interest.

    • Clark

      I already checked Gelatin and The B Thing. A few German art students were given some space to use in one of the Twin Towers. They made mazes out of cardboard boxes and drew doodles of the building. The climax of their project was that they removed one window (contrary to regulations) and extended a platform they’d made, less than one metre wide, took turns to sit outside and then retracted it after about 45 minutes. Idiot conspiracy theorists have asserted that they were actually rigging explosives, but the students’ “balcony” wasn’t even on a face that suffered damage, and nothing similar happened in the other of the Twin Towers.

      But one good thing came of looking into it. One of the students described how dismal the interior of the Tower was – just an utterly boring office-block. We tend to think of the Twin Towers as somehow timeless, like a monument or historic building. But they were just the cheapest way of stacking as much office floor space as possible in one of the highest rent areas in the world; a purely commercial venture. We shouldn’t be at all surprised that they were flimsy and fell down suddenly.

    • Clark

      Charles drake, the reports by Carl Cameron; I’m assuming they’re the ones concerning about fifty young Israelis posing as students, arrested and deported with no explanation after 9/11. So far as I know, there is no link with Gelitin / The B Thing, who are German, and really were art students. Well, a member of Gelitin had the name “Urban”, and a company “Urban Moving Systems” proved to be a Mossad front, but you know, I’ve got the same name as Superman but only because my mum liked Gone with the Wind.

      Yes, Israel clearly had foreknowledge of 9/11, and were one of several countries that submitted warnings to the US, which were ignored.

  • fwl

    Clarke, have you read the partially redacted 28 pages. What a day to be released. Cover story is that there is no smoking gun. I’ve not read them and so only going by what us reported but for a Saudi Ambassador to the US to have funded some of the hijackers is surely some sort of smoke signal.

    • Clark

      Well I’m only on page 3, I haven’t even got to the redacted pages yet, but I see that the recommendations call for greater integration between the various intelligence agencies, and a new post, the Director of National Intelligence DNI to oversee all other intelligence departments. The CIA is specifically mentioned twice, sort of “even the CIA and its Director must be made subservient to this”:

      Your action to ensure full cooperation of the entire Intelligence Community (including, of course, the CIA) and the Department of Homeland Security will be fundamental to this vital reform

      That’s a pretty strong hint that the CIA hadn’t cooperated towards national security, which is consistent with Springman’s complaints and various others’. The misuse of classification of information to serve departmental self-interest is highlighted as a problem. More resources are requested for various traditional forms of counter-terrorism, and notably NOTHING recommending mass surveillance of the general population; indeed, quite the opposite, it stresses the need for:

      … a new domestic intelligence service […] in the United States, recognising the need to enhance national security while fully protecting civil liberties

      Lysais, have any changes been made to rein in the CIA? Has the post and department of the DNI been created and given control over the CIA? It looks to me as if the Bush administration did the opposite of this report, and Obama’s has done nothing to correct that.

      I think the CIA harboured a conflict of interests, never addressed probably due to internal compartmentalisation ie. “need to know”. The CIA is routinely used to project neocon objectives overseas, by cooperation with violent Islamic groups. This is incompatible with domestic security, as was (is?) the Brittish spooks’ “Covenant of Security”, whereby violent Islamists were given refuge in Britain so long as they only performed their atrocities abroad (ie. promoting “national interests”), leading to the 7/7 London bombings (ie. breaching domestic security).

      Please note that I’m only considering legitimate and semi-legitimate governmental objectives above. I of course consider that there could have been secret groups with agents within government – infiltrators, traitors, whatever – who saw both 9/11 and 7/7 as being in their interests and exploited the situation above to enable the attacks. Such people may have been public employees, or close to or part of the Bush and Blair inner circles. But I think that neither 9/11 nor 7/7 were parts of official US or UK government policy, overt or covert.

    • mog

      Not just ‘an ambassador to the US’ but a man deeply entwined in the Saudi intelligence world (whose agencies were said to have been following the 911 plot ‘precisely’, and are known to be connected to the alleged hijackers in multiple ways); a man who was considered ‘family’ by the then president and a previous president; a man who had unusually close and private ties with the then head of the CIA George Tenet; a man who employed then head of the FBI (Louis Freeh) as a private attorney after he left office…and so on…

  • Clark

    Saudi Arabia has a “split personality”. It has two dynastic power structures intertwined; a political one and a religious one:

    The ulema have historically been led by the Al ash-Sheikh, the country’s leading religious family. The Al ash-Sheikh are the descendants of Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, the 18th century founder of the Wahhabi form of Sunni Islam which is today dominant in Saudi Arabia. The family is second in prestige only to the Al Saud (the royal family) with whom they formed a “mutual support pact” and power-sharing arrangement nearly 300 years ago. The pact, which persists to this day, is based on the Al Saud maintaining the Al ash-Sheikh’s authority in religious matters and upholding and propagating Wahhabi doctrine. In return, the Al ash-Sheikh support the Al Saud’s political authority thereby using its religious-moral authority to legitimize the royal family’s rule. Although the Al ash-Sheikh’s domination of the ulema has diminished in recent decades, they still hold the most important religious posts and are closely linked to the Al Saud by a high degree of intermarriage.

    Saudi Arabia doesn’t really have “policy” in the sense that a government does; just decisions made by members of the two most powerful families, and yes, some of those would have supported 9/11.

    At some 25 billion dollars per year the country’s military spending is about the fourth largest in the world and it’s the second largest importer of arms, accounting for around 40% of UK arms sales, other major suppliers being the US and France (note this neocon axis). It’s currently trying to overthrow the government of Syria, as well as waging war against Yemen.

    You have to question the sanity of being allied to something like Saudi Arabia, let alone arming it so comprehensively.

    This is another reason I get so fed up with the conspiracy theorists. It wouldn’t surprise me in the least if Israel had a hand in facilitating 9/11, working with power factions within Saudi Arabia. There is certainly such a cooperation to defeat the Syrian government. Yet for pointing this out the conspiracy theorists will accuse me of “demonising Muslims, just like the Official Story”. Why sanitise the head-chopping, hand-chopping Saudi-Wahhibist pact? It’s Wahhabism that perverts Islam into terrorism, spreading its murderous creed across the world funded by petro-dollars with the intention of projecting the power of two FAMILIES, and those families’ names are Al Saud and Al ash-Sheikh.

  • Paul Barbara

    I don’t know if there are any serving or ex Firemen, Police or Military reading this thread, but if so, this video was made for you:
    ‘Incontrovertible – New 9/11 Documentary by Tony Rooke’:
    I know Tony, and also Matt Campbell, who appears in the video and who lost a brother in the North Tower collapse.
    And in similar vein to 9/11 being a ‘False Flag’ to enable massive attacks, occupations and slaughter, control of important oilfields and strategic territory, massive increase and control of the opium production in Afghanistan, oil and gas pipelines and of course a ‘War on Terror, which was just a catch-phrase for a massive ‘War Of Terror’ and ‘legitimizing’ preemptive strikes, torture and worldwide assassinations of ‘suspects’ along with ‘collateral damage, come the ‘hoaxes’, like Sandy Hook, and perhaps Nice:
    Rather odd, wot?

    • Clark

      Paul Barbara, thanks for the excellent link above:

      Nobody can say the major press was not exposed to this information[. T]his extremely credible eyewitness has been stonewalled by the government and major media for a long time, even as they reported the lax security conditions that allowed those men now associated with the 9/11 attacks to enter the U.S.
      15 of the 19 did not qualify for a visa, yet they were granted one anyway. 10 of the individuals entered through the very agency Mr. Springmann once headed and then spent so much energy trying to expose.
      Springmann went public (after internal efforts failed) to expose the State Dept/CIA conduiting terrorists into the USA.

      Neocon penetration of the State Department again – thanks to Ba’al earlier, too.

      This is why I regard it as confusing to call the 9/11 attacks “false flag”. The flag pinned to it by the US is “al Qaeda” ie. Wahhabist-motivated extremists. Well such a flag does seem to be involved but with, at least, extensive support from US neocons within the CIA and the State Department. Again and again, forces under al-Qaeda-type flags have been used to project US neocon objectives – yet the mainstream never raise this well documented matter in connection with 9/11.

      “Plausible deniability” (a favourite of the CIA) seems more appropriate than “false flag”.

      • Paul Barbara

        If you just watch ‘ZERO An Investigation Into 9/11’ (FULL documentary):
        it blows the whole ‘suicide highjackers’ narrative apart. All of the ‘dodgy passports’ and money sent on the orders head of Pakistans ISI are all ‘red herrings’. 9/11 was a ‘False Flag’ ‘Inside Job’, period. It is so bloody obvious.
        NIST found no evidence of explosives at the WTC. When asked if they had looked for it (which is mandatory in such a scenario, as is maintaining the crime scene) they said ‘No’. The alleged ‘pilot’ of the plane that ‘allegedly’ hit the Pentagon, in a virtually impossible manouvre even for the most experienced pilots of Boeings, had been judged incompetent to fly a Cessna.
        Everything screams out ‘False Flag’. The huge airline and other ‘Put’ options laid just before 9/11, and US decision not to follow them up….

      • lysias

        I have read Springmann’s book, Visas for Al Qaeda: CIA Handouts That Rocked the World: An Insider’s View. It is indeed a shocking book.

  • Clark

    Does anyone feel up to editing Wikipedia? Springmann has a page but it’s short of references and makes no mention of 9/11:

    I’m not sure if Salem news (Paul Barbara’s link) qualifies as a “reliable source” on Wikipedia, but other sources linked from Paul Barbara’s link certainly do, and his presentation to the US National Press Club is quotable. Eventually, credible and relevant info on the following pages should be returned to the mainstream articles, but a solid case is needed before drawing attention:

    If Springmann’s page isn’t augmented some neocon sympathiser might put it forward for “speedy deletion” for “lack of notability”. And if you edit, observe the Wikipedia rules; observe a neutral tone – just deadpan facts backed from mainstream sources – don’t give the opposition any excuses to delete your additions.

  • lysias

    I have been skeptical of the “The Saudis did it” explanation from the start. I have long felt that, if the Saudis were involved, they were doing it at the behest of people inside the U.S. government. I see Paul Craig Roberts shares my doubts. Is the Saudi 9/11 Story Part Of The Deception?:

    James Jesus Angleton, head of CIA counterintelligence for three decades, long ago explained to me that intelligence services create stories inside stories, each with its carefully constructed trail of evidence, in order to create false trails as diversions. Such painstaking work can serve a variety of purposes. It can be used to embarrass or discredit an innocent person or organization that has an unhelpful position on an important issue and is in the way of an agenda. It can be used as a red herring to draw attention away from a failing explanation of an event by producing an alternative false explanation. I forget what Angleton called them, but the strategy is to have within a false story other stories that are there but withheld because of “national security” or “politically sensitive issues” or some such. Then if the official story gets into trouble, the backup story can be released in order to deflect attention into a new false story or to support the original story. Angleton said that intelligence services protect their necessary misdeeds by burying the misdeed in competing explanations.

    Watching the expert craftsmanship of the “Saudis did 9/11” story, I have been wondering if the Saudi story is what Angleton described as a story within a story.

    The official 9/11 story has taken too many hits to remain standing. The collapse of Building 7, which, if memory serves, was not mentioned at all in the 9/11 Commission Report, has been proven to have been a controlled demolition. Building 7 collapsed at free fall acceleration, which can only be achieved with controlled demolition.

    Interesting that Roberts knew Angleton, who died in 1987. Roberts, who was a leading congressional staffer in the late 1970’s, then an editorial writer for the Wall Street Journal, then the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy in 1981-2, then back to journalism at the Wall Street Journal, had plenty of occasion to converse with Angleton, who hung out at the Army-Navy Club in D.C. after he left the CIA in 1975.

    This whole business of stories within stories can explain a lot about all sorts of other matters besides 9/11.

  • Paul Barbara

    For all those who screech ‘Conspiracy Theory’ at anybody who questions official ‘narratives’ on terror events etc., here is some info to take to heart: ‘“Conspiracy Theory”: Foundations of a Weaponized Term’:
    Subtle and Deceptive Tactics to Discredit Truth in Media and Research:

    I suggest folks respond to the prffered arguments or evidence, rather than just dismissing the argument with the knee-jerk expression: ‘Conspiracy Theory’!

    • Clark

      I’m aware that the term “conspiracy theorist” has been exploited. It would be harder to exploit if everyone would be more rigorous with evidence. “Conspiracy theorists” is as good a term as any; appropriate, in fact. The mind-set exists, and whatever term is used as a label for it, it will be adopted and exploited.


      1) Assumption of a preferred conclusion.
      2) Crowbarring any available event (accidental death or death through illness being favourites) into being “evidence” of that preconceived conclusion.
      3) Using anything hidden or secret as such “evidence”, eg. using the actual evidence of a cover-up by NIST as evidence of pre-rigged explosives, dismissing other possibilities.
      4) Making public implications (ie. smears) of anyone questioning such dubious evidence that they’re “working for the conspiracy) – (Paul, you haven’t been doing this one, to your credit).
      5) Siding with other conspiracy theorists against those sceptical of the assumed conclusion despite their positions being logically incompatible with one’s own. (Paul, again, not you, particularly.)

      The problem with all of the above is that they narrow the field of acceptable enquiry. Let’s imagine that NIST are covering up weaknesses in the Twin Towers. That’s a crime that potentially endangers literally millions of people and it should be exposed. But if anyone who investigates in that direction gets accused of “supporting the official story” or “propagating a limited hangout”, it closes down legitimate debate.

      Another serious consequence is that it makes more advantageous to seed deliberately misleading theories. For instance, let’s again say that the Towers collapsed through structural deficiency. The prevalence of the “conspiracy theorist’s mindset” makes it more worthwhile for secret public relations operatives working for construction companies or construction inspectorates to seed stories of explosive demolition, knowing that such stories will spread like wildfire, thus providing cover for corrupt construction operatives, and discrediting those investigating theories involving poor construction by associating them with “conspiracy theorists”.
      _ _ _ _ _

      Having said all that, I firmly believe that the exaggerated suspicion that results in “conspiracy theorising” is actually caused by institutional secrecy and the distortions in the mass media. It’s an inevitable reaction some people will have to being kept in the dark – just like, as kids, we imagined monsters in the dark. But there’s precious little we can do about the source of the problem. All we can do is control our reactions to it, and only accept positive evidence, ie. “over two seconds of free-fall (something we know, ie. positive) indicates that Building 7 may have been demolished”, as opposed to negative evidence, such as “NIST are obviously covering something up (we don’t know what, ie. negative), so it must be controlled demolition”.

      • Paul Barbara

        1) Assumption of a preferred conclusion.
        I didn’t question the ‘Official Conspiracy Theory’ till 2004, when my attention was drawn to problems with that ‘narrative’.
        2) Crowbarring any available event (accidental death or death through illness being favourites) into being “evidence” of that preconceived conclusion.
        If deaths occur which are very convenient for the authorities, though not evidence, they can certainly be suspect.
        3) Using anything hidden or secret as such “evidence”, eg. using the actual evidence of a cover-up by NIST as evidence of pre-rigged explosives, dismissing other possibilities.
        The evidence for controlled demolition is unreacted thermitic material and tiny spherules of iron in the tested dust, and the over one hundred reports from First Responders of multiple explosions.
        4) Making public implications (ie. smears) of anyone questioning such dubious evidence that they’re “working for the conspiracy) – (Paul, you haven’t been doing this one, to your credit).
        There is a good case for referring to some people as ‘Gatekeepers’ if they ignore obvious anomalies in the ‘Official Narrative’.
        5) Siding with other conspiracy theorists against those sceptical of the assumed conclusion despite their positions being logically incompatible with one’s own. (Paul, again, not you, particularly.)
        It is perfectly proper to ally oneself with others who have many similar theories or beliefs, but who have some divergences.

        As an example of (2) above, take a case you are probably unaware of:
        ‘Joan Rivers Murdered For Exposing Michelle Obama As Tranny!! 2014’:

        ‘Joan Rivers Dead Two Months After Calling Obama Gay, Michelle a Tranny’: a-gay-michelle-a-tranny/

        ‘Joan Rivers’ Daughter Sues Medical Clinic Over Comedian’s Death’: clinic-over-comedians-death-20150127

        There is no doubt in my mind that Joan Rivers was murdered for exposing ‘Michelle’ Obama, but I accept it theoretically could be a ‘coincidence’. I know all too well that the US is run by criminals that would make Al Capone look mild in comparison.

1 90 91 92