The 9/11 Post 11807


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


11,807 thoughts on “The 9/11 Post

1 132 133 134
    • SA

      glenn_nl

      Thanks for this. With people like Prince Charles and Tony Blair these people are in good company. I have stopped commenting on 911 when I realised that most of those who are strong advocates of CTs are also confidently commenting on things I know so much more about than they do. In some cases there is difficulty in even recognising that quoting self styled ‘expert’ who have no knowledge in the field, is a valid ‘scientific’ argument.
      I think it is time for Clark to understand that you can’t convince such people. They inundate you with hundreds of links and ask you to analyse each one of them and refute what their ‘experts’ say. Also many are strongly anti-vaccines and other things that are known to save lives.
      Of course healthy skepticism about authority is wellcome but when science is attacked we really have to stand back and recognise that we do not speak the same language so argument is futile.

      • glenn_nl

        SA – cheers. I hear what you’re saying, but in many cases it’s even worse that that. For instance, we went right through the anti-vaccine arguments a couple of years back. I took the trouble to follow up the references for some of the heavy-hitters that were doing the rounds, and the sub-references from them proved to be either non-existent, utter bunk, or totally irrelevant to the points they purported to make.

        After not inconsiderable effort, it appeared we’d got to the bottom of the most commonly quoted supposed authorities of the anti-vaxxers. Nevertheless, they reappeared as if afresh a short while later, even quoted by the same people as if the previous discussions and examinations of their sources had never occurred.

        The only useful purpose of these discussions is to help you personally improve your understanding of an issue. You’ll never explain it, even when you know better. As that article makes clear, those of an anti-scientific persuasion are utterly convinced of the correctness (if not the righteousness) of their cause, while those attempting to discover the truth always have doubts.

        • John Goss

          glenn_nl
          “. . . while those attempting to discover the truth always have doubts.” And who might they be I ask myself?

          I never looked at your article because I could see it had nothing to do with 9/11. However it seems to have found some support from dissenters who appear to support the anti-Newtonian destruction of the twin towers from fire and damage above but fail to explain why (something even NIST could not do).

          Anyway I had a look. I have doubt about your support for mainstream medical opinion being right all the time. I think doctors try to do the best for their patients. I also think big Pharma could not care less about health and is primarily concerned with profit. For example acceptable levels of cholesterol were much higher twenty years ago than they are today. Reducing the acceptable level brought trillions into the market. What is the acceptable level for cholesterol? Nobody seems to know. What will it be next year? Nobody knows. I don’t blame doctors for following guidelines. If they did not they could be struck off.

          No I’m not a great supporter of mainstream medical opinion.

          I know you would like to discuss subjects on this thread which are not concerned with the topic and that you might have more success and support if you did. I don’t know what SA’s qualifications are. To be honest it does not matter. If he, or any of you, can model a collapse and disintegration of a tower without explosives it would raise doubts in my mind. But I asked you Glenn to look at the Jonathan H. Cole video and asked whether he deserved to be a physics teacher, and whether his experiments were valid. You ignored it.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMR1XC-Lce0

          So who are those who always have doubts? Is it me, and Nikko, who have repeatedly asked for experimentation to raise doubts in our minds? Or is it those who divert attention by posting off-topic subjects which might be interesting in their own right but are not concerned with trying to persuade us where we are going wrong over 9/11?

          By the way it is not just your off-topic comments I ignore.

          • glenn_nl

            JG: ” I have doubt about your support for mainstream medical opinion being right all the time.

            Did I say the same is right all the time? I must have forgotten. Would you be kind enough to refer me to where I said any such thing?

            All the same, you disapprove about the “correct” level for cholesterol, because the recommended amount has changed over time. And to prove it all, they don’t know what the correct level should be!

            John, if you’d understood anything at all from the NYT article, you’d know that was precisely the point. The professionals have doubts, uncertainties, and vary the theory according to whatever the best available evidence might be to date.

            The pseudo-scientists on the other hand have no doubt whatsoever, and zero hesitation in making absolute pronouncements despite having zero learning in the subject on which they hold forth.

            That was the point of the article. Maybe you could try reading it again. No disrespect.

            *
            Sorry, too, that you’re a bit annoyed at my apparently being off topic (although I would argue I was not). Perhaps you could bring some of this discipline forth the next time someone else starts off on a conspiracy theory not directly attached to 9.11 ?

            Both yourself and Node get rather cross when someone goes off topic. Unless, that is, they are a conspiracy buff like yourself. In which case it’s just fine.

            *

            Sorry I didn’t get back to your youtube – far from ignoring it, I had rather of lot of other things to do which were more important to me than looking at some video and spending precious time dissecting and debunking it.

            Posting a link to a video takes what, 10, 20 seconds? Watching them takes from tens of minutes to hours, and providing an analysis of it an order of magnitude longer.

            Been there, done that. It’s an utterly unrewarding use of my time, for two reasons:

            – I’ll get hit up with another dozen youtube videos if the first didn’t appear to do the trick
            – Everything I might reply concerning the video will be comprehensively ignored.

            That is why I do not bother even looking at such sources anymore.

          • John Goss

            “That is why I do not bother even looking at such sources anymore.”

            But you get time to read and post these off-topic articles. I rather suspect you have no answer to science by experimentation and that is why you choose to ignore it. I have repeatedly posted this for Clark’s benefit. He cannot discredit it. But he will not say whether Jonathan H Cole is fit to teach physics. However both he and Kempe have accused my grandson’s science teacher of being unfit to teach physics because they cannot see how, when asked by my daughter, the twin towers came down as they did and obey Newton’s laws.

            I made a stab at your article but I’m not going back there. The cholesterol and other mainstream understanding of treating heart problems was from reading the work of Dr Malcom Kendrick.

            You cannot accuse us of scientifically having our heads in the sand when it is you who ignores real science through experimentation. You clearly do not have any doubts about the verity of your position, whatever it is, therefore it is you I suggest, with respect, who does not have an open mind on the topic of Craig’s post.

          • John Goss

            “However both he and Kempe have accused my grandson’s science teacher of being unfit to teach physics because they cannot see how, when asked by my daughter, the twin towers came down as they did and obey Newton’s laws.”

            Should have read:

            However both he and Kempe have accused my grandson’s science teacher of being unfit to teach physics. When he was asked by my daughter, the teacher could not see how the twin towers came down as they did and obey Newton’s laws. That, even though there is no evidence of him teaching anything about the twin towers, disqualified him from teaching in their eyes.

            Sorry I wrote it hurriedly.

            P.S. As you are a supporter of Clark perhaps you would help him out with the Jonathan H Cole experiments.

          • glenn_nl

            JG: But you get time to read and post these off-topic articles.

            I read in in the paper edition of the NYT on Sunday, and later found a link and posted it. It’s entirely on topic, but that fact might have evaded you, unfortunately.

            Do you read newspapers, John, or is the Conspirator’s Gazette all you look at these days?

            As far as scientific experimentation, are you seriously suggesting that some silly models with empty beer cans are likely to prove anything of the slightest significance?

            If so, and knowing your deep respect for the scientific method, may I suggest you write up a paper on it (together with the conclusions you draw from this experiment), submit it to Scientific American (or any respectable journal of solid science), and let us know what they think of it.

            I very much look forward to reading it – do let me know the publication date.

          • SA

            John
            I know that this is a 911 post that is reserved for indulging in 911 discussions only. My involvement here has been because at some point other ‘conspiracy theories’ which I understand more were discussed and made me amazed about the level of dogmatic denials. However I thought I will make one small contribution here to the demolition vs damage by other means in the collapse of the twin towers. I found this
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ptvvbaR0-U

            and what struck me about this is the narrator keeps on giving examples of ‘known’ controlled demolitions and in between also slips in clips of the collapse of the twin towers also calling them controlled demolitions.
            A couple of things struck my untutored eyes:
            1. All the examples of the ‘controlled demolitions’ were of buildings of modest heights maybe 14 to 20 stories or so. I am not sure whether a controlled demolition of a structure as tall as the twin towers has ever been recorded. What I am trying to say is that doing a controlled demolition on such a structure, if it had not been attempted before is a daunting prospect to carry out under these circumstances without really careful planning, even at the time of the demolition and to be so completely successful.
            2. The fall of the WTC towers appeared to be much neater than that of the controlled demolition. In the controlled demolition there was a tendency for the collapse and charges to be either at multiple levels or at the bottom. Strangely enough they did not look as neat as the collapsing WTC towers collapsing. In fact what struck me was that there was a progressive collapsing line and no evidence of damage preceding the collapsing parts in the twin tower videos.

            As to Newton’s third law, I believe the simplistic interpretation of why this is against collapse due to the falling of the top stories is that if ten stories fell, then given that they would be of the same consistency as the next ten stories, that they would only cause the collapse of the next ten stories because of the ‘equal and opposite reaction’. However there are two things I would like to ask as a ‘layman’: Where does gravity come in here, as this to me would mean that actually if ten stories cause another ten to collapse then actually this would produce a force equivalent to 20 stories which would then collapse the next twenty and so on. Please explain to me where I might be wrong in this assumption.
            Now to turn to topics I am more familiar with. You state:

            “Anyway I had a look. I have doubt about your support for mainstream medical opinion being right all the time. I think doctors try to do the best for their patients. I also think big Pharma could not care less about health and is primarily concerned with profit. ”
            John you could say this about engineers, bankers, solicitors and any profession. But you would be wrong, why? Because if Pharma could not care less about health, they will eventually be out of business. I am not the one to defend big Pharma or big oil, but I fuel my car and I travel in buses and so on. Big Pharma do some shady practices and push some drugs and so on but they do this within some regulated frameworks, and with obvious benefits.
            One of these frameworks is the controlled clinical study which requires ethical oversight by committees which include laymen and carried out by doctors within a framework. I personally would rather that we had another model of drug development that did not require the profit motif but what we have has improved the survival from various diseases and this you cannot deny.

            “For example acceptable levels of cholesterol were much higher twenty years ago than they are today. Reducing the acceptable level brought trillions into the market. What is the acceptable level for cholesterol? Nobody seems to know. What will it be next year? Nobody knows. I don’t blame doctors for following guidelines. If they did not they could be struck off.”

            Initially statins were introduced to reduce cholesterol level in individuals who either have an inherited condition where they have high cholesterol levels in the blood or those with increased dietary intakes and they were shown to be very effective in reducing illness and death from cardiovascular disease (heart attacks and strokes). Later it was found through trials that the benefit extends to all patients who have also high risk factors, whether it is high cholesterol or not, and these risk factors include, smoking, diabetes, overweight, history in the family of heart disease or strokes and so on. Some trials have also shown that you can extend this benefit further by increasing your target population but you get the law of diminishing returns so that you may have to give the drug to 100 individuals, say, to benefit one or two people. It would be up to individuals and to society as whole to decide if this is acceptable and this is then subjected to what is called a cost benefit analysis. Because statins produce very few side effects (except in some people who react to them whereby they can produce muscle pain, there is a rather high risk benefit ratio.

            “I know you would like to discuss subjects on this thread which are not concerned with the topic and that you might have more success and support if you did.”
            I apologise if that disturbs anyone, and I would be happy for the moderators to delete anything I write if they consider it off topic. The reason I have started writing here is that Paul started to add various other conspiracy theory discussions, including mobile phones and vaccines with other things added here and there. The world of conspiracy theories seems to be interconnected and maybe relevant to 911. Of course healthy skepticism is important and all scientists exercise this as well as self doubt and this ultimately leads to improvement. But what I have been resisting is the sweeping generalisations about Science, Medicine and Pharma that prevail among the truthers, as I believe you like to be known.

            “I don’t know what SA’s qualifications are. To be honest it does not matter.”
            Exactly, why should it matter since I am not one of the cognoscenti?

          • John Goss

            “As far as scientific experimentation, are you seriously suggesting that some silly models with empty beer cans are likely to prove anything of the slightest significance?”

            So you had a look at the “silly models”. They were written for a lay readers by someone who understands how Newton’s Laws work in practice. Jonathan H Cole’s presentation also tries to simplify things. You are happy to call my experiments silly but not able to give any rational explanation of how they defy Newton. I think on this you have been misled by Kempe who only comes on this thread to try and disrupt or denigrate. Although I am a toolmaker I also have an MLitt and that is where much of my real expertise lies (18th Century Literature).

            So perhaps having insulted me you might care to explain what is silly about the beer-can experiments and where they do not behave according to Newton. Better still take a look at Jonathan Cole who has more money than me and has done better experiments. But you won’t. So who is interested in the truth?

          • glenn_nl

            John: I do actually regret saying “silly” about those experiments, did so immediately upon hitting “send” and recalling that phrase which I meant to go back and edit. I am genuinely sorry, you took the effort to actually bother trying what others have only offered a few words about. You did organise it as a genuine experiment, which is praiseworthy in itself. I apologise.

            I know your expertise is not actually in physics, and your knowledge on a very large number of subjects is worthy of respect. It’s an awful shame – a flaw in the human condition, I’d hazzard, that superiority in the subject to hand (whether that be greater knowledge in a science, technology, or being an instructor in martial arts) is taken to be a general superiority. A general condescension takes place, which is entirely undue – and undeserved and unproved.

            This is where that idiot mate of Clark’s went wrong, that fool TomK. Because he _thought_ he understood physics better, he felt this entitled him to tell us how the world works too.

            Anyway, let us continue, but please know I am not gently mocking your arguments on physics out of any lack of respect for you personally.

          • John Goss

            SA
            January 8, 2018 at 20:47

            Thank you for your measured response.

            I know that this is a 911 post that is reserved for indulging in 911 discussions only.”

            On other threads I have no problem going off-topic. The reason I am more precious about this is because it is the only thread where the topic can be discussed. Nearly everything on the main thread at the moment is off-topic. After a while people start their own topic and that is all right.

            I watched your demolition video and agree that it seems to be trying to brainwash people through repetition of the same phrase: “This is a controlled demolition.” I don’t think it does our cause any good whatsoever.

            “Please explain to me where I might be wrong in this assumption.”

            Well you might even be right that ten stories might collapse ten stories. But my understanding is that should that occur the energy would have been consumed (spent) and there would be no inertia left. Two cars smash head-on and they quickly stop becaue the energy is spent and manifests itself in damage usually to both cars.

            “Now to turn to topics I am more familiar with. You state:

            “John you could say this about engineers, bankers, solicitors and any profession.
            But you would be wrong, why? Because if Pharma could not care less about health, they will eventually be out of business. I am not the one to defend big Pharma or big oil, but I fuel my car and I travel in buses and so on. Big Pharma do some shady practices and push some drugs and so on but they do this within some regulated frameworks, and with obvious benefits.”

            I partly agree S.A. They must do some good – smallpox. And they do some harm – thalidomide. Pressure from Big Pharma got Dr Andrew Wakefield struck off. I have read some of his research and consider they should not have disregarded it out of hand. He might not have been totally right but MSM have a field day with people like Wakefield. You would see what I mean if you typed “Disgraced Doctor” and “Wakefield” into a search engine. I found this which does not particularly support Wakefield and there are questions I would like to ask the author(s). One would be isn’t ADHD a form of autism.

            https://www.wddty.com/magazine/2017/july/vaccines-after-wakefield-so-are-they-safe.html

            I have no real medical knowledge but I do believe that a person has the right to take statins or not, and my right not to take them, which I exercise, and you agree with my right, has the support of Dr Malcolm Kendrick who has about as big a following as Craig.

            https://drmalcolmkendrick.org/

            He suggests Big Pharma have a vested interest in statins. He also believes there is no proven connection between heavy (animal) fats and heart disease, citing as an example France, where the populace has a gluttonous appetite for all kinds of meat. Yet their life expectancy is longer than we Brits. I had better not say more because in making isolated statements or arguments I cannot do his work justice.

            ““I don’t know what SA’s qualifications are. To be honest it does not matter.”
            Exactly, why should it matter since I am not one of the cognoscenti?”

            What I meant by “it does not matter” was whatever your qualifications or lack of qualifications you have every right to express your opinion. As does everybody else.

          • John Goss

            glenn_nl
            January 8, 2018 at 21:38

            Thanks Glenn. As you know I don’t take offence for long.

            On the subject of 9/11 feelings run very high. Those who support the towers collapsed into themselves I am sure believe it as strongly as I believe such a thing could not have happened.

            “Anyway, let us continue, but please know I am not gently mocking your arguments on physics out of any lack of respect for you personally.”

            Made me smile. 🙂

          • Clark

            “Pressure from Big Pharma got Dr Andrew Wakefield struck off”

            Wakefield was struck off because he had invasive procedures – lumbar punctures and colonoscopies – performed upon children for the sake of his research – not because they needed them – thereby landing one child in hospital with multiple bowel perforations and as a result suffering multiple organ failure, kidney and liver problems and neurological damage.

            Wakefield was working for Big Pharma when doing this research – he was involved with patenting a rival vaccine to MMR. Wakefield received over £400,000 in legal aid money for his ill-conceived experiments which harmed children.

            But the real villains were the MSM, Tony and Cherie Blair, and their New Age, anti-science associates Carole and Sylvia Caplin, and Jack Temple.

            “but MSM have a field day with people like Wakefield”

            Actually the MSM made several field years out of Wakefield – firstly bigging him up as some sort of hero, and then tearing him down again rather than admit that the crisis was their own fault in the first place.

          • Clark

            And here’s the 1998 patent application with Wakefield’s name on it:

            http://briandeer.com/mmr/1998-vaccine-patent.pdf

            Finally:

            “Those who support the towers collapsed into themselves I am sure believe it as strongly as I believe such a thing could not have happened”

            You presumably believe, John. For my part, I worked out what happened for myself, by considering the structure, carefully and repeatedly watching the videos, and looking up a few figures. My feelings run high because my reasoning is pitted against a group-reinforced belief system. For over a year I have tried my best to explain, but the “criticisms” I receive in return prove that no one apart from Glenn has even understood what I’ve said. There is simply no point in talking to deaf ears.

        • Node

          For instance, we went right through the anti-vaccine arguments a couple of years back.

          Yes, I was there too and I don’t recognise your summary of the conversation. This is how I remember it: You and Clark were attacking someone (Scouse Billy maybe?) for his scepticism towards the vaccine industry. I questioned your certainty that such criticism was unfounded. There followed about a dozen exchanges where you both insisted upon equating my uncertainty with uncritical belief in all vaccine conspiracy theories. I kept denying your black and white argument and offering proven documented examples of fraud, lies and government corruption to support the vaccine industry until you both conceded that “don’t know” was a reasonable POV.

          And by the way, I’m still waiting to hear how you justify calling me a “thug.”

          • glenn_nl

            Node, I took the trouble to thoroughly examine a real “gotcha” paper that someone claiming to be a PhD had published, and was said to be the last nail in the coffin of pro-vaxxers. It was utter rubbish, a fraud, and not one person promoting anti-vaxxer theory had the courage to challenge any of my findings on it.

            Soused Billy maintained that doctors and nurses _knowingly_ give patients mal-treatment intended to kill them. The doc/nurse KNOW they are killing the patient.

            Did you question that? Of course not. You’ve never confronted one conspiracy on this thread. You’ve yet to take to task any conspiracy buff about anything, have you?

            The fact that there is fraud in dealings with money doesn’t make everyone who deals with money crooked, does it? Of course there are going to be lies, fraud and deception involved in an industry worth $trillions worldwide. Whoever said there wasn’t? But to conclude all vaccines are therefore bogus is plain silly. But I never heard you concede the point.

            You’re a bully, Node, because you’re one-sided. You’re happy to hold the coat of anyone giving a kicking to someone you conclude isn’t on your side, and you see this entire debate as tribal. Ever criticised Macky for being so unpleasant and pesonal? Ever criticised or questioned the conspiracy ravings of another, no matter how laughably outlandish? Of course not.

            But you have gone after people like myself, SA, Clark and anyone else who has the audacity to question conspiracies, questioning whether we should be able to post at all on this thread when you don’t like it.

            That’s the sort of behaviour that makes you a thug, Node, since you asked.

            MODS – please note this is an answer to a direct question and not a personal attack.

          • Node

            @ glenn_nl.

            So your response to what I said about vaccines is to tell me I am responsible for what somebody else said about vaccines, and you say I’m a thug because I don’t like the same things as you. Here is my position :

            (1) I am responsible for what I say on this blog.
            (2) I am not responsible for what others say on this blog.
            (3) I am not responsible for what others think I should say on this blog.

            If you think any of these rules are unreasonable, please explain why. Otherwise I ask you to respect them.

          • glenn_nl

            N: “So your response to what I said about vaccines is to tell me I am responsible for what somebody else said about vaccines, and you say I’m a thug because I don’t like the same things as you.

            No, that’s not what I said at all.

          • Node

            No, that’s not what I said at all

            OK, let’s deal with the vaccines first. Which part of your response DOESN’T refer to what Scouse Billy said.

          • Clark

            Node, it seems to me that you already have drawn your own conclusions, dozens of them, and you don’t even realise it. Here’s a conclusion you’ve drawn:

            “You and Clark were attacking someone (Scouse Billy maybe?) for his scepticism towards the vaccine industry”

            So you’ve concluded that Scouse Billy was expressing “scepticism towards the vaccine industry”. But Scouse Billy was claiming that every vaccine has no protective effect; that this is scientifically well known but concealed by conspiracy; that the smallpox vaccine did not eradicate smallpox and was not even effective against it. Scouse Billy’s target was not “the vaccine industry” but the science behind and practice of vaccination itself.

            There are actually several conclusions you drew here; one about Scouse Billy’s motivation; two others, about my motivation and Glenn’s motivation, and conclusions about people’s application and degree of scepticism towards science and commercial organisations.

            On January 8 at 19:51, you very definitely drew your own conclusion as to the meaning of what Glenn posted, just as you did with me some time ago.

            “(1) I am responsible for what I say on this blog.
            – (2) I am not responsible for what others say on this blog.
            – (3) I am not responsible for what others think I should say on this blog.”

            Well that seems rather manipulative to me. You can consistently chime in and support conspirologists while consistently criticising those sceptical of conspirological positions, but with the above statement absolve yourself of any responsibility for such behaviour.

            So overall it seems to me that, known or unknown to yourself, you draw your conclusions before you debate, and then shape your arguments best to demonstrate your foregone conclusions.

      • Clarq

        SA, this is from Clark, under modified credentials for I am very probably being censored by now. Thank you for the tiny glimmer of hope you bring me. I am having a crisis of confidence in human nature. The problem is clearly structural to the human psyche; everyone must have the problems clearly demonstrated on this thread.

        I am sick of humans, and sick of life. Trust has become impossible, because with any person, a subject will eventually be encountered that causes their rationalisation process to kick in, and beyond that, rational discussion becomes completely futile.

        Since everyone does this about something, they all protect each other’s similar activities. Collectively, the ids dominate, and everyone’s egos serve the community of ids.

        I really cannot see hope for such a species, and I cannot see what can be done about it. Technological abilities will continue to increase in power, but through this unconscious, collective action this mighty power will forever serve mere instinct, until it brings about the destruction of everyone, or even the entire biosphere.

  • John Goss

    Clark asked what I thought Dr Wood’s Billiard Ball theories proved.

    Theories of course do not prove anything which is why they are theories.

    Instead of “proves” I should have used “shows”. She was not setting out to prove anything. You cannot even prove any of Newton’s laws as this lecture shows.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xuj8iPVu7q0

    Explanation of Newton’s 3rd starts about 14:15. Lewin explains why we accept Newton’s 3rd.(20.08). “All measurement, all experiment within the uncertainties are consistent with Newton’s third”. Compare that with Richard Feynman “If it does not agree with experiment, it’s wrong.” Therefore we have to concede that Newton’s 3rd is right.

    It is however the agreeing with experiment that is what you seem to be unable to grasp Clark. As Nikko as said time and again we have been asking you to explain (in my case by experiment) how 1.4% of the weakened part of a steel structure that sat above 98.6% of the structural steel below it, brought it down in almost freefall, not to its knees but to its ankles and below, destroying a whole central core and the floors it supported at the core.

    Any simple explanation will do.

    • Clark

      In case you’re interested, it was the case that Newton’s laws were accepted simply because they hadn’t been disproved. But then came relativity and quantum physics, which showed why Newton’s work had been so successful, and precisely quantified the limits of its accuracy. So Newtonian mechanics has effectively been proved; it’s the known outcome of a very broad set of special cases within the larger contexts of relativity and quantum physics.

      • Nikko

        Well done Clark. Now you have so eloquently explained about the validity of Newton’s laws, what about applying them in practice?

      • John Goss

        If you watch the Lewin video he explains the limitations. You have shown nothing by experiment and no valid explanation of why those who have demonstrated why the towers could not have fallen as they did through experimentation are wrong.

        What we want from you is how the towers could have come down in the way they did and obey the basic fundamentals of Newton, which is what you need to understand in practice before muddying the waters with Einstein.

        • John Goss

          “– “You have shown […] no valid explanation of why those who have demonstrated why the towers could not have fallen as they did through experimentation are wrong”

          Cole is wrong because he always uses an unrealistically small vertical gap between ‘floors’. If he increased the gap he could experimentally produce accelerating collapse.”

          I thought his gaps were realistic and the gaps (proportionally) of your glass shelves overgenerous. Nevertheless your shelves would still behave according to Newton’s Laws. Acceleration would be slowed or arrested. In fact glass is not very helpful to your experiment because if one glass shelf fell squarely on another the chances are it would trap a cushion of air, which itself would slow and perhaps even halt acceleration due to gravity.

  • Macky

    Time for some commonsense on CTs;

    “The healthy way to hold a conspiracy theory is in an open palm, the way the cute little white rabbit is being held in the feature image of this article. If you grab it tightly and imbue it with the power of belief, you’re stuck with it, and it’s stuck with you. Good contradictory information can’t get in, and bad validating information can’t get out. Your reality tunnel contracts around those tightly-held beliefs, and the poor little bunny is being suffocated. Open those fingers and simply allow the conspiracy theory to be a collection of ideas which may or may not be true, and you’ve got a cool way of looking at things that you can pick up and cuddle when you want to without limiting your ability to take in and process information.

    Hold it loose, but not so loose that it can be slapped out of your hand by someone who rushes in saying “Durr, that’s a conspiracy theory!” That’s all you really need; the personal confidence to be able to say “Nah, I’ll be hanging on to this one thanks, though I remain open to new information and robust arguments. If you find any, do let me know.” All you need is confidence in your own ability to process information for yourself and assign probabilities to what you reckon is going on without imbuing any of it with the power of belief.

    I love a good conspiracy theory as much as the next gal, but I hold them in an open palm. If someone wants to believe in Russiagate or QAnon I totally respect that, just don’t come in trying to indoctrinate me into any belief system about them or I’ll find you as annoying as an intrusive Jehovah’s Witness.”

    https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/the-healthy-way-to-hold-a-conspiracy-theory-947c6462e061

  • Clark

    I protest at the biased “moderation”. I will publish the identities of the moderators if my comments are not restored.

  • Dave

    When you look at the NYC skyscrapers, really look at their size and build, the enormity of what happened becomes apparent and totally implausible. How could a 110 storey high tower x 2 collapse into dust due to a localised event at the top without the use of explosives of some kind.

    A big reason why people ignore the elephant in the room is due to globalist political correctness that has morphed into so called ‘hate crime’. Hate crime legislation is not intended to protect the weak but the powerful, hence why identifying those responsible for 9/11 is denounced by the perpetrators as a hate crime!

  • Paul Barbara

    ‘Aluminum in Vaccines: History and Toxicity’:
    https://healthfreedomidaho.org/aluminum-in-vaccines-history-and-toxicity97
    ‘…What scientific research or evidence do we have for an applicable “safe” limit?
    In the FDA Code of Federal Regulations on TPN therapy (Total Parenteral Nutrition – the feeding of a person intravenously), it states:
    “premature [newborns], who receive parenteral levels of aluminum at greater than 4 to 5 [micro]g/kg/day accumulate aluminum at levels associated with central nervous system and bone toxicity.”
    And that,
    “Tissue loading may occur at even lower rates of administration.”
    Based on the above, it can be gathered that an exposure level of even 5 micrograms of aluminum (per kilogram body weight, per day) is a dose that would cause observable adverse effects in infants. This dose is much higher than what an experimentally determined safe limit would be. However, this is the closest thing that we have to a potential injectable reference dose for how much is approaching “unquestionably too much”….’
    BUT:
    ‘…Some calculations:
    The average newborn weighs approximately 7.5lbs or 3.5kg.
    “Safe limit” = 5 micrograms/kg/day
    Multiply by weight of newborn: (5mcg/kg/day)(3.5kg) = 17.5 micrograms/day.
    Amount of aluminum in the hepatitis B vaccine, given on the first day of life = 250 micrograms.
    Demonstrably, the amount of aluminum in just one hepatitis B vaccine is over 14x the “safe limit” for how much a newborn would receive in one day…..’

    And you should see the number of vaccinations babies get by the age of one year, all cumulative.
    If you are not interested in vaccinations, fine, don’t read this comment, but it all ties in with our ‘Esteemed Leaders’ leading us into wars by means of ‘False Flag’ attacks, hoaxes and lies, and their wanton destruction of the environment, poisoning of our food with pesticides, herbicides, heavy metals, GMO’s, factory farming, toxic injections of livestock and so on.

  • SA

    John Goss
    January 8, 2018 at 22:59

    John.
    I respect that this is a 911 comments area and will limit future comments to that.
    The videos of the controlled demolitions have actually strengthened my belief that what happened to the twin towers was not a controlled demolition as they really look so different. In controlled demolition films there is multifocal explosions and predominantly at the bottom with inward implosions of lateral structures whereas it was clear from the twin tower collapse films that there was a serial collapse from level to level with preceeding explosions or damage. Moreover it would really take a lot of planning and ingenuity to produce such a demolition and there would be both external and external signs of involvement of individuals concerned with carrying out this activity unobserved and during such intense scrutiny. The other theories proposed by the truthers are possible but are they feasible under the circumstances? Also if you analyse the possible benefit for the powers that be of demolition of the towers with the accompanying risks of failure and being exposed, above that which they already had as a casus belli for carrying out the invasion of middle east countries that was provided by the successful hijacking of the airlines and slamming them on the towers and pentagon. That is of course if you are not a no-planer, which would then be another and separate discussion.
    Newton’s third law. Surely it is too simplistic to compare what happened to the twin towers to what happens in a collision between two cars travelling at different directions. If I understand correctly the problem here is not just the crushing force of the falling structures versus the reaction of the lower supporting structures because there is a third force, gravity that is at play. So the only requirement for the process to stop is if the structure below the damage is able to stand the pull of gravity. Normally such structures are made to stand a vertical downward pressure but obviously also to a certain extent, lateral or twisting forces due to wind or earthquakes. However these are normally not very severe. It is therefore possible that fire causing expansion of metal with breaking the bolts securing the horizontal struts to the vertical supports could be responsible for the loss of vertical support and collapse, and that is not dependant purely on the simplistic .

    Vaccines and drugs: it is a bit minimalist to speak only about smallpox and thalidomide. The list of achievements of modern medicine and pharmacology have led to much longer life expectancy for all of us. Mistakes happen from time to time and these unfortunately cause illness and some inadvertent death, but the overwhelming benefits are well documented, and vigilance has led to incremental improvement. We cannot stop vaccines because of previous errors just as much as we shouldn’t continue with space exploration because of the Challenger disaster. And also things do move on, so that research papers from 2012 may no longer be valid because changes may have been made.
    Of course everyone has the right to reject advice from doctors as much as it is also the duty of doctors to give clear advise, explain the risk/benefit of various treatments.

    • Dave

      Its semantics!
      A controlled demolition, like WT7, looks like a controlled demolition, like other controlled demolitions that take place all the time. WT1 and 2 looked different and so were not the controlled demolitions we normally see. And so technically another term is needed, but the term controlled demolition is used because people understand what it means, a building deliberately rigged to be demolished. Hence the twin towers were collapsed by explosives, so saying the towers collapsed due to “pre-rigged explosives being planted throughout the buildings” would be a long winded but technically more accurate term and which is what you profess seeing!

      • SA

        I think you have not answered my question fully. Please read again and feel free to answer or not as you wish.

        • Dave

          Perhaps poorly worded, but my point was, it was an untypical controlled demolition. That is the towers were fitted with explosives, that were exploding, which you could see, but the method used and severity was for dramatic effect, to be immediately described as an act of war and the pretext for the war on terror. Whereas WT7 was a hidden demolition in comparison. And planes hitting the towers, and no more, would be too mild to warrant an open ended war, particularly if there were no planes involved.

    • John Goss

      “If I understand correctly the problem here is not just the crushing force of the falling structures versus the reaction of the lower supporting structures because there is a third force, gravity that is at play.”

      My understanding in the case of the twin towers is that gravity is the only force at play or should be if no explosives were used. Until the top of the building began to fall there was no observed momentum.

      Newton’s third applies to everything/ If the two cars example is not a good illustration, and I certainly don’t think it could be applied to the towers because only the top fell. It is more like a car going into a wall, tree, truck &c. There was only 1.4% of the structural steel dropping less than 1% of the height of the building onto 98.6% of a structure firmly grounded in the bedrock. To me it is evident that what we saw could not have happened by gravity alone.

      • SA

        OK John let us agree that your physics training is better than mine and that there are many things that the official story does not fully address and also let us agree to differ. Could I just ask you as to why you think it was nescessary to carry out this demolition to achieve the war on terror with all its ramifications?

        • John Goss

          SA

          I don’t have any physics training but I am a toolmaker by trade which is the high-end of the practical side of engineering. There is a growing number of highly-qualified architects and engineers (about 3,000) who do not believe the towers could have fallen by gravity alone. I could not join them because I do not have the academic qualifications. Nevertheless they are the GPs, surgeons and specialists in their industry seeking an inquiry. What harm could an inquiry do?

          I cannot really answer your question as to why the twin towers were brought down. Anything I say is only going to be speculation even though I do have an opinion. The late Aaron Russo was told by Nathan Rockefeller about a year before 9/11 that there was going to be an “event” with soldiers searching in caves and what have you. Others too had heard similar stories. Why would the US do such a thing to its own people? My speculation would be an attempt to continue to control the economies of the world because of the US National Debt which is greater than GNP. The US is an empire in decline. As with all empires in decline, the Russian Empire and Roman Empire are good examples, when the glory days are over and empires have stretched their tentacles to regions they can no longer maintain only by further acquisitions can they hope to maintain the dominant position they once held. War has always been the easiest way to make acquisitions. (An indication of empires in decline is a loss of family values and increased licentiousness.)

          • SA

            John
            I know all that but what I am saying is that the same purpose would have been achieved by just leaving the towers intact after they were hit by aeroplanes, that was sufficient cassus belle without the added risk.

          • Paul Barbara

            @ SA January 9, 2018 at 23:11
            ‘Are they prepping for 9/11 PT 2?’:
            http://www.federaljack.com/are-they-prepping-for-911-pt-2/
            I am not offering this in support of Federal Jack’s theory, but simply to show that, yes, drones HAVE been painted in Airliner colours.
            If someone saw this kind of aircraft for a split second, I think it is very reasonable they would assume it was an American Airlines airliner.
            Barbara Honegger claims a drone was shot down over the Pentagon lawn by a US helicopter, but did not hit the Pentagon. And it was to the left of the hole in the Pentagon, near the helipad:
            ‘9/11 Pentagon Attack – Behind the Smoke Curtain – Barbara Honegger’:
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fvJ8nFa5Qk
            Interestingly, the scrap of aluminium ‘found’ on the lawn could not be placed as a part of a Boeing, but it was painted in American Airlines colours. According to the narrative, an American Airlines airliner hit the Pentagon. So people who saw a drone so painted, for a split second, could well assume it was an AA airliner.
            Was one, or perhaps two, also used against the Twin Towers?
            Well, it’s very easy to see that the Global Hawk is NOT what all the pictures from TV show as hitting the Twin Towers, and on TV could not be mistaken for Boeings.
            But my, and others, contention is that the pictures we saw on TV and later videos were faked. But that does not mean there were no ‘aircraft’ involved, which could indeed be why some ‘witnesses’ say they saw the aircraft in real life on the day (again, just for a split second).

            Why do the Twin Toowers not look like regular controlled demolitions? Well, under normal circs, controlled demolitions are not made out to be the result of planes flying into them, but are billed as just what they are, controlled demolitions. In the case of the NY Towers, it was supposed to look like a collapse caused by airliners crashing into them, so the charges and nanothermate were set up so as to give that impression (though you can still see flashes along the collapse line in some videos, and of course squibs).
            But often forgotten is the testimony of  William Rodriguez, a janitor for nearly twenty years in the North Tower:
            ‘Interview: The untold story of September 11’:
            http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/1219050.Interview__The_untold_story_of_September_11/
            ‘…Rodriguez became a national hero as a result of his actions that day and was honoured five times at the White House. But all that changed when he started asking some very awkward questions.
            Why had he heard a massive explosion from the basement seconds before the first aircraft hit? Why had the building collapsed so suddenly, defying the laws of science? And why were the authorities seemingly intent on hushing up his story?
            Incredible though it seems, Rodriguez decided there could be only one explanation. It was a coverup….’
            He, and all the others in the BI basement, know the first massive explosion came from under them, in lower basement levels So whether it was mini-nukes or conventional explosives, the first explosion WAS at the base, as per regular controlled demolitions.

            As the article relates, he was honoured five times at the White House, and made a ‘Hero of the US’. He was made a great fuss of; he was offered his own TV show, and it was suggested he become a politician – until he persisted in talking about all the explosions he heard in the building. Then, he was dropped like a hot potato.
            So he resisted a very nice future, in order to speak the truth. This muust give added credibility to his account of events.
            And why was all his testimony to the 9/11 Commission held behind closed door?
            And why was not one of the survivors among his workmates interviewed?

          • Paul Barbara

            @ SA January 9, 2018 at 21:09
            ‘…Could I just ask you as to why you think it was nescessary to carry out this demolition to achieve the war on terror with all its ramifications?…’
            I know this question was asked of John Goss, but I will give the reasons I have managed to glean from my 9/11 Truth readings:
            The Neo-Cons wanted a high death toll (like they suggested, a ‘New Pearl Harbour’.
            Pearl Hharmbour was a deliberate, cold-blooded sacrifice of 2,400-odd sailors in order to get the US into WWII. FDR and the High Command knew the precise times of the attack, they tracked the Japanese Task Force across the Pacific, but did not warn the commanders of the Navy and Army in Hawaii.
            With the Towers, they were virtually condemned, chock-a-block contaminated with asbestos. The NY Port Authorities had put out tenders to either clear out the asbestos manually, or to dismantle the Towers (the normal method would have been to bring them down with – wait for it – controlled demolition – but laws require that CD not be used if a building contains asbestos.
            The Twins had never made money; they were unpleasant to work in, and had always been well under occupied. But the location was incredibly valuable. If only someone could wave a magic wand and make the Twins disappear! And the insurance possibilities were mind boggling!
            When the Port Authority put the whole WTC up for lease in 2000, Larry Silverstein bid for it. He lost, but the winning bid fell through, so his was accepted. Just six weeks before the ‘Terrorist Attack’ of 9/11, ‘Lucky’ Larry signed the lease, and had two speacial clauses included in the insurance – protection against ‘terrorist attack’ and that if the Twers were destroyed, he would have the right to rebuild on the site (pretty cute, what? How could anyone at that stage have thought for a moment that those two mighty towers would be, not attacked, but destroyed?
            You know the rest, ‘put options’ on firms in the WTC, airline companies (not all – just American and United).
            I hope that give some food for thought as to why the Towers were brought down.

        • Paul Barbara

          @ SA January 9, 2018 at 21:09
          I just tried to answer your question, but my comment didn’t appear (not even ‘waiting for moderation’.
          Perhaps it was too long, I’ll try splitting it up and reposting, as it did take me a while to put together.

          • Paul Barbara

            @ SA January 9, 2018 at 21:09
            My reply, split into two, is above. Mainly in answer to ‘why did they need to bring down the Towers’.

    • Nikko

      ” The videos of the controlled demolitions have actually strengthened my belief that what happened to the twin towers was not a controlled demolition as they really look so different. “
      Did you check out videos of demolitions of similarly tall structures that are steel framed?

      ” …..whereas it was clear from the twin tower collapse films that there was a serial collapse from level to level with preceeding explosions or damage. “
      Preceding explosions are not compatible with a gravity collapse.

      ” Normally such structures are made to stand a vertical downward pressure but obviously also to a certain extent, lateral or twisting forces due to wind or earthquakes. However these are normally not very severe. “
      Normally such forces are not very severe but buildings have to be able to withstand these forces when they are very severe.

      ” It is therefore possible that fire causing expansion of metal with breaking the bolts securing the horizontal struts to the vertical supports could be responsible for the loss of vertical support and collapse, and that is not dependant purely on the simplistic “ .
      In the Twin Towers there were no horizontal struts. The floors served the purpose of providing lateral stability by bracing the perimeter to the core but played no role whatsoever in providing vertical support. The perimeter and core were self supporting and loss of the floors could not have resulted in the fragmentation of the structures.

      • SA

        “Did you check out videos of demolitions of similarly tall structures that are steel framed?” No I didn’t. Did you? Do you have any links?

        “Normally such forces are not very severe but buildings have to be able to withstand these forces when they are very severe. “
        Yes I agree but I don’t think that alters the possibility that an expansion of steel caused by fire could destroy the basis of that stability which is the connection between the horizontal and vertical elements of the steel frame.

        “In the Twin Towers there were no horizontal struts. The floors served the purpose of providing lateral stability by bracing the perimeter to the core but played no role whatsoever in providing vertical support. The perimeter and core were self supporting and loss of the floors could not have resulted in the fragmentation of the structures.”

        If you say so. My understanding was that there were horizontal steel beams that were bolted on to the vertical structures in the core, but I may be wrong.

        • Nikko

          ” did you check out videos of demolitions of similarly tall structures that are steel framed?” No I didn’t. Did you? Do you have any links? “

          The point I was trying to make is that there aren’t many known demolitions of similar buildings and that drawing conclusions on the basis of dissimilar examples is not sound. The second building in this video is similar in the technique used, although it appears to be a concrete building and is only 20 odd storeys high.
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbff_Ol-izY

          ” Yes I agree but I don’t think that alters the possibility that an expansion of steel caused by fire could destroy the basis of that stability which is the connection between the horizontal and vertical elements of the steel frame. “

          The basis of stability has been disrupted by fire and physical damage but only at and near the point of impact. 50m or 200m away from the impact there would have been no damage.

          Anyway, how would vertical instability manifest itself in a tubular structure. Think of a beer can of standard diameter but much much taller, until it stops standing rigid but starts to wobble. You now have a model of the towers without the lateral support of the floors. Then fire a few bullets into it near the top, stand a brick on top and apply a blow torch. What do you expect will happen? Will it break up into hundreds of pieces?

          How do you explain the hefty 3-storey high sections of the perimeter structure ending almost 100m away in a horizontal direction from their original location and the smaller claddings 120m away.

          https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/db/Aerial_photo_of_WTC_groundzero.jpg

          • SA

            “The point I was trying to make is that there aren’t many known demolitions of similar buildings and that drawing conclusions on the basis of dissimilar examples is not sound. The second building in this video is similar in the technique used, although it appears to be a concrete building and is only 20 odd storeys high.”

            Exactly why I asked you. The closest one can find is the collapse of the Pasco building in Tehran
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPGr4D1-zDI

            Which was also a steel framed building but of course much smaller. However it proves the principle that fire can cause a steel frame building to collapse.

            “Anyway, how would vertical instability manifest itself in a tubular structure.”
            Once again I have argued this with you. The lattice framework of the WTC frames was not a rigid continuous tube but a latticework or meshwork of components. Moreover this aluminium can cannot be compared to a steel framework building, the properties of the two metals are vastly different and the proportions of do not compare. If you wish to show any experimental proof, whether real or theoretical, it has to be realistic and not just any experiment.

            My belief is that this was a unique experience of a collapse of skyscrapers and therefore all of the comparison with other demolitions is essentially false. It was a rare set of circumstances that led to a rare collapse.

            Now as I said before, the neocons have achieved thier purpose of invading the 7 countries they were planning to invade (except for Iran which is currently in thier crosshairs) and would have done it whether the buildings collapsed or not, it really is therefor immaterial to try and prove something that is not provable and that will not lead to any convictions. What we already know is enough to convict Blair and Bush but nothing will ever happen to them. We also are very clear about what is happening in Syria and the complicity of the West in encouraging Jihadis. But has it changed anything. I really feel that it would be futile to try and convince people like me. I know there are conspiracies but let us convert our energies to something current.

          • Paul Barbara

            @ SA January 10, 2018 at 11:25
            ‘…Which was also a steel framed building but of course much smaller. However it proves the principle that fire can cause a steel frame building to collapse….’
            It doesn’t prove it, actually. Architects & Engineers did a report on it, and asked the Iranian authorities to check for explosives, which I don’t believe they did.
            I don’t know if you missed it, but I did try to answer the question you addressed to John Goss –
            ‘Paul Barbara
            January 10, 2018 at 00:01
            @ SA January 9, 2018 at 21:09
            ‘…Could I just ask you as to why you think it was nescessary to carry out this demolition to achieve the war on terror with all its ramifications?…’
            I know this question was asked of John Goss, but I will give the reasons I have managed to glean from my 9/11 Truth readings:….’ above.

          • Node

            My belief is that this was a unique experience of a collapse of skyscrapers ….

            … or three unique experiences of a collapse of a skyscraper.

          • Nikko

            ” The lattice framework of the WTC frames was not a rigid continuous tube but a latticework or meshwork of components. Moreover this aluminium can cannot be compared to a steel framework building, the properties of the two metals are vastly different and the proportions of do not compare. If you wish to show any experimental proof, whether real or theoretical, it has to be realistic and not just any experiment. “

            I think you are being pedantic as well as not very clear in your thoughts. What experimental proof are you asking me to show you? That explosives can destroy structures?

            What needs to be demonstrated is that gravity alone can collapse a steel framed building in perfect symmetry, at near free fall speed and scattering debris over 100 meters of distance following minor asymmetric damage at the top. Over to you as I am only able prove that it could not have happened. Both of us cannot be right.

            I note that you have ignored my question about the scattered debris.

        • John Goss

          This is a NASA mobile launch pad which must have got ‘warmed up’ by lots of rocket fuel in the past and must therefore be incredibly weak. 🙂 Anyway the important thing about steel structures is how strong they are and how much steel there is left at the end. The dust clears on this one at about the 2 minutes mark.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiHTv10Ysuk

          This was 410 feet high. At the end of the demolition all the steel is still intact. That is how strong structural steel is and why buildings they want to last are built from it. It is cheaper to drop a steel-structured building by toppling it. Otherwise explosives have to be used. Anybody who thinks otherwise has problems understanding Newton’s third.

          Now think of the inner-core of the twin towers at three times that height. Where did all that steel go? China is the flippant answer. 3,000 people died on 11/9/2001 and defending the perpetrators is what makes me angry. There is no excuse for flippancy! And no excuse for not having an inquiry.

  • SA

    John, Paul, Nikko and Dave

    Thank you all for taking the time to explain. I think I have better things to do than indulge in circular arguments which will not shift what I think or what you think. It just becomes a belief system and in belief systems you cannot argue, you just have to believe. It is indeed very telling that the 911 movement are now after the Iranian authorities to get them to look for explosives in the collapsed building in Tehran. What were the Iranians conspiring to do I wonder. So I am saying good bye to this page, perhaps meet again in other pages. Take care and don’t have to many nightmares.

    • John Goss

      “It just becomes a belief system and in belief systems you cannot argue, you just have to believe.”

      I think that is the big problem SA. Unfortunately there are no arguments outside the fact that the twin towers were demolished by some type of explosives. At least to my knowledge nobody has presented anything on this thread to show how it could be done otherwise.

      A friend in my pub-quiz team will not debate it. Like you he just has his belief and even though he cannot explain why scientifically he will not budge from his belief. Otherwise he is a bright man. Such a belief though, with respect, is the reason there is no progress. It is understandable that people do not want to think America would do such a thing to its own people.

      If you don’t mind me saying your belief-system argument is the exact opposite to your defence of Big Pharma. They do fund research and as you say it has to be rigorously scrutinised.

      But to say taking capsules of lead will cure syphilis because we believe in it is not good science. If that was an argument I was presenting I too would leave the thread. 🙂

      Anyway it was good to have somebody polite to discuss things with on here. So I wish you well. Perhaps you will take with you some of the arguments that have been presented here including this.

      “What were the Iranians conspiring to do I wonder.” Who said the Iranians did it?

  • John Goss

    “The forces of the aircraft impacts must have been amazingly high. I have no difficulty imagining they would bring down the building.”

    I do wish Craig would occasionally visit this most popular of threads to explain how what most of us consider to be totally implausible could have happened. This is one way a steel-framed skyscraper can be brought down into itself by implosion. The comments show what most people have come to believe, Their government lied to them.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8U4erFzhC-U

  • Clark

    Tony Opmoc linked to a piece about depression:

    https://www.sott.net/article/373314-What-if-Everything-We-ve-Been-Told-About-Depression-is-Wrong

    “all humans have certain basic psychological needs. We need to feel we belong. We need to feel valued. We need to feel we’re good at something”

    This is why I cannot continue on this thread. Concerted action brands me an outsider with negative value, and I’m constantly told that I am no good at my best subject. The moderators see to it that my comments, at least, have no secure future. It is simply too depressing for me to continue here.

    You have “won”, for now, if defeating rationality is ever a win.

    • glenn_nl

      I wonder if the Troofers will count it as a “win”. They can congratulate themselves on having seen off those sheeple/ state agents/ those afraid to contemplate the conspiracies they bravely grasp. They can swap absolutely barmy tales about silent explosions, holograms appearing high in the sky, in broad daylight, and seen from every angle for miles around, fake actors combined with multiple shooters whenever a gun nut goes on a rampage, and explaining away every terrorist attack as a “false flag” – because surely nobody is _really_ upset with our foreign policy.

      Then again, like your Jehovah’s Witnesses, without being able to complain about being repressed and fighting the opposition, is there any point of it at all? Perhaps saying “Whatever, dude” is the best reply to Troofers. Leave them to their reinforcement circle of youtube videos and Alex Jones ravings.

      Seriously though, Clark – you didn’t think everyone was going to see it your way, did you? A wise fellow once told me that nobody can be reasoned out of a position that they didn’t reason themselves into in the first place.

      Regardless, good luck. Perhaps this thread is best left alone.

    • SA

      Clerk
      This is not a zero sum game. I would like to reply more fully and will probably do so later but I am busy today.

  • Macky

    There’s plenty that can be said about this discussion titled “Are 9/11 Truthers Anti-Semites? An Interview With Elias Davidsson”; I think the conclusion makes that clear;

    “As I already mentioned above, I consider it beyond dispute that the US military planned and executed the mass-murder of 9/11 on behalf of the US elite…”

    http://www.countercurrents.org/watzal221213.htm

    • Paul Barbara

      @ Macky January 11, 2018 at 11:44
      Pointing out obvious foreknowledge and other links by Isr*elis with the 9/11 attack is not ‘anti-Semitic’, any more than pointing out that the Isr*elis intentionally attacked the USS Liberty is, or saying they commit War Crimes against Palestinians (for instance in the bombardment of Gaza).
      Anyone who is within striking distance of London may wish to protest the abominable Apartheid Regime’s treatment of children tomorrow:
      ALERT 12th Jan 2018 – VIGIL TO DEMAND FREEDOM FOR PALESTINIAN CHILD PRISONERS

      DATE: Friday 12th Jan 2018, 2pm-4pm
      LOCATION: Under Hungerford / Golden Jubilee Bridges on the Southbank (between London Eye and Southbank Centre) (near Waterloo station / across river from Embankment tube)
      FACEBOOK: https://www.facebook.com/events/113623349443988/
      WEB: http://inminds.com/article.php?id=10781
      http://www.inminds.com

  • Paul Barbara

    Dr Hulsey and his team will soon be coming up with their final WTC 7 Report, after it has been opened to academic and public scrutiny.
    It will be interesting to see how many ‘debunkers’ step up to the plate, and how Hulsey & his team rebut them.
    At a guess I very much doubt anyone from this thread will take the risk!

    • Clark

      “I very much doubt anyone from this thread will take the risk!”

      Snipe, snipe. Plus the routine conspiracy theorists’ assumption – each person either accepts all ‘alternative’ narratives, or simply ‘believes what the government tell them to’. Please scour your memory, or this thread, for my actual position on the collapse of WTC7.

1 132 133 134

Comments are closed.