The 9/11 Post 6199

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 *

6,199 thoughts on “The 9/11 Post

1 105 106 107
    • Clark

      His name is Ketcham, with an ‘a’. I feel a bit responsible because it was me that first misspelled his name; a subliminal confusion with ketchup, I think. I like the music; it kept reminding me of this:

      Criticism first… For me, the video was let down by Twin Towers demolition theory; Ketcham’s ignorance of mainstream academic acceptance of progressive collapse will tend to discredit his concerns about Building 7, as will his repetition of obvious fallacies such as the Twin Towers supposedly “falling into their own footprints”. Why do people keep repeating these old chestnuts when anyone can see them to be false? The selective quoting annoyed me as well; at 06:45 they show Danny Jowenko without mentioning his opinion that the Twin Towers fell in progressive collapse, and at 09:31 they edited off the fire-fighter’s statement that WTC7 “came down on its own”.

      But on the good side this video shows many clips that I find most interesting…

      05:07 – “You want to call your mother?” –
      07:49 – “This building’s about to blow up”
      – comparing length of shadows and density of dust in the air, these two shots seem to have been taken at around the same time of day. If anyone knows the whole videos from which these clips were taken, please link them.

      09:23 – Reporter distracted by sound at WTC7’s collapse.
      15:23 – Dust early from bottom of WTC7.
      15:39 – A high core remnant, briefly? This WTC1! Suggestive, but not definitive.

      17:26 onwards, WTC2:
      – 17:30 – Collapse begins,
      – 17:32 – first ejections,
      – 17:33 – first big ejections, away and left from the far face of the building,
      – 17:34 – first big ejections towards camera. I take these big ejections as the start of the internal collapse.
      – 17:38 – first emergence from dust of a remnant of the core. Look how high up it is! I’d never noticed this before. It doesn’t last long…
      – 17:40 – core remnant falling away, downwards and to the right.

      It’s hard to judge due to the shot zooming out, but that piece of core looks to be about the height of WTC2’s damaged zone.

      18:14 – “…fall off to the side” – Not likely with those pieces of core still standing.
      18:35 – Another good shot of ejections indicating initiation of the internal collapse.

      20:43 – WTC7 side-by-side with demolitions. In each case, the images appear to descend together, but more storeys of WTC7 are visible, so WTC7 actually fell faster than any of these other buildings:
      – 20:43 18 storeys of WTC7 versus 14
      – 20:48 34 storeys of WTC7 versus 17
      – 20:53 16 storeys of WTC7 versus 13

      21.13 – WTC2 core remnant?
      22:14 – In the section picked out with a rectangle we see what I take to be part of the internal collapse wave that seems to have proceeded faster than the rest. I’m puzzled as to why this occurred; maybe a big lump of top perimeter smashing its way down withing lower perimeter. Ironically, it contradicts Ketcham’s earlier claim of near perfect symmetry.
      22:37 – “Huge chunks of perimeter beams…” – The material outlined actually looks like many sections of the aluminium exterior cladding.

      23:09 – Another shot where we see the ejections I believe to be caused by the internal collapse:
      – 23:12 – Beginning of the ejections, soon obscured by material from above falling faster than the downward progression of the ejections,
      – 23:15 – ejections become visible again at the nearest corner,
      – 23:19 – leading ejections at the far corner become visible.

      26:26 – That high shot again, with the high piece of WTC2 core remnant at 26:33
      28:35 – Another shot showing that there was dust near the bottom of WTC7 relatively early in its collapse compared with the Twin Towers.

      30:40 – A shot showing considerable height to the debris pile.
      – 30:55 – Note the box-column ends, with four vacant holes for bolts in each; it looks like the bolts failed rather than the box column sections broke.

      I find it highly ironic that so many of Ketcham’s assertions are contradicted so clearly by the visual evidence presented, for instance, those vacannt bolt-holes in the box-column ends do not look like the work of explosives.

      • Clark


        The clip beginning at 19:18, with a watermarked logo “FPJ”, showing some of Building 7’s collapse… Does anyone know what “FPJ” is? And if you know if the full video from which this clip was taken, please link to it.

      • Clark

        A reference that I missed;

        21:29 – Another good view of the rubble pile. Plenty of large steel pieces there, again contradicting Ketcham.

        I also find it very intriguing that A&E9/11Truth have included so many of the very best images of the core remnants in this video – the best collection I’ve seen anywhere. Survival of the core (however briefly) beyond the main collapse is good evidence FOR progressive collapse of the floor assemblies, and presents additional difficulties for pre-rigged demolition theories; with the core exposed and stripped to a skeleton, any later thermite combustion to bring down the core would have been visible, or in the case of high explosives, the shock waves would have been seen traversing the dust. Core remnants also help explain the symmetry of the collapses – “a doughnut (the perimeter) sliding down a stick (the core)”.

        It’s almost as if A&E9/11Truth’s video producers were trying to discredit Ketcham.

  • Paul Barbara

    More declassiified documents on CIA manipulation of the MSM:
    ‘Newly-Declassified Documents Show that CIA Worked Closely with Owners and Journalists with Many of the Largest Media Outlets’:

    The Church Committee was very thorough – the PTB have it all sewn up now, with bribery and blackmail (and assassination as a last resort) so that there is never going to be any other ‘proper’ investigations into the CIA, military or government misdeeds.

    • Clark

      It’s a fascinating and highly informative lecture. I’ve read part 1 so far. Three paragraphs:

      CIA actions proceed without government oversight:

      “And the CIA director was required by law to brief the Congress. This CIA director Bill Colby – the same one that dumped our people in Vietnam – he gave 36 briefings of the Congress, the oversight committees, about what we were doing in Angola. And he lied. At 36 formal briefings. And such lies are perjury, and it’s a felony to lie to the Congress.”

      Torture is to “get the response you want from the individual” not, as routinely claimed, to find out what is true:

      “We had the `public safety program’ going throughout Central and Latin America for 26 years, in which we taught them to break up subversion by interrogating people. Interrogation, including torture, the way the CIA taught it. Dan Metrione, the famous exponent of these things, did 7 years in Brazil and 3 in Uruguay, teaching interrogation, teaching torture. He was supposed to be the master of the business, how to apply the right amount of pain, at just the right times, in order to get the response you want from the individual.”

      Stockwell believes the real intention is to maximise profit for the arms industry:

      “You have to be asking yourself, why are we destabilizing 50 corners of the troubled world? Why are we about to go to war in Nicaragua, the Central American war? It is the function, I suggest, of the CIA, with its 50 de-stabilization programs going around the world today, to keep the world unstable, and to propagandize the American people to hate, so we will let the establishment spend any amount of money on arms….”

        • Clark

          Paul, I “got the gist” years ago, when I read these articles of Craig’s:

          The point I keep trying to get across is that if you accuse governments of things they aren’t doing or haven’t done, people who believed you are likely to dismiss valid suspicions when they discover ones that are invalid. People stop following leads if too many turn out to be wild goose chases.

          Pre-rigged demolition of the Twin Towers is a prime example. People see Chandler’s argument and think they’re onto a certain winner; “Newton will win this” they say. But Chandler’s argument is wrong. On discovering that Twin Tower demolition theory lacks mainstream academic support, most people react in ways helpful to covert operators. Many just switch off, abandoning so-called “conspiracy theories” altogether, throwing out the baby with the bathwater. A sizeable minority go to the opposite extreme and start believing every whacky theory in sight, degrading their own credibility by becoming “conspiracy theorists”.

          Keeping an open mind is the most challenging response of all. I can tell you that I’ve found it very difficult on this thread, with all and sundry either insulting my intelligence or insinuating I’m an agent. Twin Tower demolition theory is so effective that I have to consider the possibility it’s a psi-op.

          • Paul Barbara

            @ Clark March 17, 2017 at 00:33
            ‘….The point I keep trying to get across is that if you accuse governments of things they aren’t doing or haven’t done, people who believed you are likely to dismiss valid suspicions when they discover ones that are invalid….’

            The point is I am absolutely convinced the ‘government’ were responsible, at least those who were part of the ‘Deep State’ (like Cheney & Rumsfeld).

            I checked out the links you gave to Craig’s old posts; he has a very good grasp of what governments get up to under Banksters’ and Financiers’ influence. Pity he’s still blinkered on 9/11!

            Here is a short article which you may find of interest: ‘Was Paul Wellstone Murdered?’:

            One day you may read a similar headline on an alternative site: ‘Was Paul Barbara Murdered?’.

          • Clark

            Paul, Craig isn’t “blinkered on 9/11”; you just have to read what he actually wrote rather than what you think he meant:

            “I do not rule out any point on the whole spectrum of surveillance, penetration and agent provocateur activity by any number of possible actors”

            That’s very close to what you call the “Deep State”.

            I have a criticism of that term “Deep State”. I described it as “an informal network”, and as such it is not limited by boundaries of nation or citizenship. You call 9/11 “false flag”, but it didn’t even raise any flag! The only claims of responsibility came from fake videos, and those were after the event. We’ve been through all this; the IRA had to set up code words to identify operations as theirs in advance.

            Could a “deep state”-type international informal network arrange to have mainly Saudi suicide hijackers crash aircraft into buildings? It looks eminently possible to me, and indeed highly desirable for whoever arranged it due to the degree of deniability it would have conferred. Could such crashes have caused the Twin Towers to collapse? My knowledge of physics and everything I’ve learned about the design, construction and collapse of those buildings suggests that it’s not merely possible but highly probable, and top academics agree.

            I’m not saying that the above was necessarily what happened, but insisting upon contradictory conclusions just to spite “the official narrative” looks like just the sort of reaction that psi-ops are designed to provoke, to muddy the water. I have to consider that those who commission covert operations are probably a lot better at designing them than I am at figuring out what really happened.

          • Paul Barbara

            @ Clark March 17, 2017 at 14:24
            ‘..“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 that rules out the alleged ‘hijackers’ not being responsible at all.
            ‘…The only claims of responsibility came from fake videos, and those were after the event….’;
            But the government and MSM immediately blamed OBL and alsmost immediately ’19 Arab hijackers’, with no PROOF whatsoever. And there’s you continually going on about ‘proof’. You have accepted the allegations about the ‘hijackers’ with no proof whatsover, just allegations and ‘Red Herring’ false trails deliberately manufactured to sell the ‘hijacking’ narrative.
            ‘…You call 9/11 “false flag”, but it didn’t even raise any flag!…’
            A ‘False Flag’ attack is basically an attack on your own or allies people which is perpetrated or arranged by agents of the government or ‘Deep State’ (also called ‘Shadow Government’ – though you don’t like these terms, they have been used by countless very knowledgeable people, including many ex-‘Security Agents’) and blamed on another government or group in order to give ‘casus belli’ or to crack down internally on rights and civil liberties.
            The term comes from a time when ships would fly another country’s flag in order to sail close enough to attack, then either just attack or run up their genuine flag at the last minute, when it would be too late for the victim ship to respond.
            ‘…Could a “deep state”-type international informal network arrange to have mainly Saudi suicide hijackers crash aircraft into buildings? It looks eminently possible to me, and indeed highly desirable for whoever arranged it due to the degree of deniability it would have conferred….’
            Yes, they COULD have arranged that, but they could also have demolished them themselves, or in conjunction with another ‘friendly’ accomplice state.
            ‘…Could such crashes have caused the Twin Towers to collapse? My knowledge of physics and everything I’ve learned about the design, construction and collapse of those buildings suggests that it’s not merely possible but highly probable, and top academics agree…..’
            But other experts’ knowledge of physics say these collapses were not possible without controlled demolition.
            ‘…I’m not saying that the above was necessarily what happened, but insisting upon contradictory conclusions just to spite “the official narrative” …’
            I and many others do not insist upon ‘contradictory conclusions just to spite “the official narrative”, but because that is where the evidence and rational interpretation of events and narratives leads us.

          • Clark

            I and many others do not insist upon ‘contradictory conclusions just to spite “the official narrative”,

            Over and over again, for years, I have been accused of “supporting the official narrative” or being some sort of agent because I argue against demolition of the Twin Towers. It really is as simple as that. You and your ilk insist “believe this, or you’re the enemy”. You lot don’t approve of people thinking for themselves; only repetition of approved memes is permitted. It is disrespectful, condescending, utterly infuriating, and when seen as a dynamic of a group, scary.

            What you wrote about David Icke? Well that’s what the demolition theorists are to me.

            And there are countless millions like me. In my case, I recognise a progressive collapse when I see one (and remember that Danny Jowenko agreed), but your crowd won’t permit me to accept the evidence of my own eyes. On the other hand, ANY other theory is acceptable to you, even if it’s impossible. Apparently, your ONLY criteria for judging an assertion is whether it contradicts the “official narrative” or not. You never stop to consider that the “official narrative” may be cleverer than you think.

            I don’t know what the evidence for hijackers is because I’ve wasted so much time defending myself against people bamboozled by Chandler’s false physics argument, and investigating assertions that turn out to be bunk. But I know that hijacking is accepted by serious whistleblowers including Michael Springmann, Coleen Rowley and Susan Lindauer. And I know enough of your methods of assessing evidence to seriously doubt your assertions. Sorry, but that’s what I think.

            Further, I expect that the various investigations involved hundreds if not thousands of public employees, just ordinary civilians doing their jobs. I don’t expect perfection, but the degree of fabrication and suppression required to support your assertions is unreasonable.

            And the logic doesn’t stand up. If the entire “official narrative” were fabricated, it would never have pinned 9/11 on a bunch of Saudis. Palestinians, Libyans, Syrians, Iranians, Lebanese or Afghanis yes, but not Saudis.

          • Nikko

            “I recognise a progressive collapse when I see one”
            Nobody is disputing that the collapse was progressive. The discussion is about whether it was gravity only or had a bit of extra help.

            “ “……..bamboozled by Chandler’s false physics argument”

            Your repeating that Chandler got it wrong is not the same as proving it. Apply the same rigour that you expect from others to your own arguments.

          • Clark

            Chandler’s argument “proves” that any mass at the top of any structure cannot accelerate under gravity through that structure, if that structure was previously supporting it. Very simple reductio ad absurdum.

            Nikko, please try to look at Chandler’s argument without prejudice. There is a reason that argument is rejected by physics and engineering communities, and that reason is not that the CIA is omnipotent.

  • Paul Barbara

    ‘The official 9/11 story has taken too many hits to remain standing’:

    ‘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……….’

    This has been my position all along, that the Saudi business was a ‘Red Herring’, though I had never read this article before.
    But both Paul Craig Roberts and the ediitor of the FPJ are wrong in stating that WTC 7 fell at free fall speed; it only did that for a part of the collapse. But even that is impossible without explosive demolition.

    • Clark

      Yes it could be a “story within a story”. 9/11 could be all sorts of things. Retreat to untestable positions does not get us anywhere.

      Thanks for your accuracy about WTC7’s period of approximately free-fall descent. Actually, free-fall acceleration of the visible perimeter isn’t quite impossible without explosives. If internal structure fell first, its lateral connections could have pulled the perimeter down after it. Though this seems very unlikely, Chandler’s raw data suggests that the perimeter’s descent may have actually exceeded free-fall briefly, in which case this is the only reasonable possibility I can think of (I have an unreasonable one but it’s completely mad).

    • KingofWelshNoir

      Yes, I have no doubt the ‘Saudis did it’ story is a deliberate false trail. The clue is the fact that it basically supports the official narrative, just with a different set of Middle Eastern perps.

    • J

      Sorry, missed the conversation up thread. Had similar concerns to those mentioned above. If something seems too good to be true… Yet at the same time, he seems sincere and very emotional. Not sure what to make of it apart from someone in the early stages of ‘post-denial’ and yet to trawl through all of the available research.

      • Clark

        Ketcham is a software developer, not a physicist or an engineer. Yes, he does seem very sincere and emotional, but he repeats many of the wrong arguments popularised by AE9/11″Truth”.

        What happened to Building 7 is very disturbing. I don’t think anyone really knows what happened to it. NIST should come clean and admit that they don’t know either and insist that ALL available data be thrown open to the public, but I expect they were under a lot of pressure to “come up with something”.

        The critical issue of our time is disclosure. The scientific method and rational analysis have proven themselves extremely powerful, but they are fatally vulnerable to distortion and non-disclosure. This applies across all fields of human endeavour. Our ability to conceal, deceive and manipulate, often even in opposition to our conscious intent, is dragging us to global disaster.

  • Clark

    Johan Galtung interviewed by Nafeez Ahmed predicts the decline and fall of the US empire under Trump:

    “Galtung has also accurately predicted the 1978 Iranian revolution; the Tiananmen Square uprising of 1989 in China; the economic crises of 1987, 2008 and 2011; and even the 9/11 attacks—among other events, according to the late Dietrich Fischer, academic director of the European University Center for Peace Studies”

    • Paul Barbara

      I also predict the fall of the ‘Evil Empire’, but I cannot predict the timing.
      Another thing I can predict is that it will come with a bang, not a whimper; Like their controllers, they have a ‘Sampson Option’, and will use it.
      THEN, the Luciferians will meet there Waterloo, on the ‘Day of Judgement’.
      I cannot prove it, but I have bet my life on it.

      • Clark

        You seem to write in some sort of code. Who are “they”? Who are “their controllers”? And who are “the Luciferians”?

        You seem to be staking many more lives than your own upon your personal, human and therefore inevitably sinful judgement.

        • Clark

          Will you take your religion seriously? The Spirit of God is within, but so is the Spirit of Evil.

          “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone”. And what is sin? To sin is fall short of perfection. Yet you have no doubt of your own judgement, and you praise another for his lack of self-doubt.

          • Paul Barbara

            @ Clark March 19, 2017 at 12:08
            I do actually take my religion seriously, very seriously indeed.
            Your biblical quotations suggest a religious upbringing, so you should be well aware that the quotation “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone” was to stop a stoning to death of someone who had been accused and judged guilty (whether justifiably or not) of a ‘crime’ officially sanctioned as requiring the said method of execution. And Jesus’ intervention prevented the barbaric execution.
            The quotation does not in any way seek to prevent people from opposing crimes, just because we are all sinners.
            I do not, and never have nor ever will, claim infallibility. But I do have enough experience and knowledge to rely on my judgement. And I will certainly praise someone who has the same confidence intheir own assessment of whatever, IF it fits in with my assessment. Not exactly ‘Rocket Science’, but we all have to set some kind of dealing with a complex world.

          • Clark

            You have not answered me plainly. Who are “they”? Who are “their controllers”? And who are “the Luciferians”?

        • Paul Barbara

          @ Clark March 19, 2017 at 11:53
          No code. It should be perfectly obvious that the us is the entity I refer to as the ‘Evil Empire’. ‘Their controllers’ should also be obvios; search ‘Sampson Option’. ‘Luciferians’, oddly enough, are people who have thrown their lot in with Lucifer, the ‘Fallen Angel’. I can understand your not agreeing or believing what I commented, but I cannot believe you really didn’t understand what I was on about.
          As for staking any one else’s life on my ‘predictions’ and beliefs, I don’t quite see how you come to that conclusion. I have staked out my positions; others can believe what they like. Am I sinful? Of course I am, and worse than most. But I do try to spread the truth as I see it.

          • Clark

            Ah ha. You do write in code. An anti-Semitic conspiracy theory.

            Prejudice and bigotry are far from Christian virtues.

          • Paul Barbara

            @ Clark March 20, 2017 at 15:21
            If you think that is either anti-Semitic or a ‘conspiracy theory’ you are out of touch with reality.

  • Clark

    “Truth, Justice, Peace”.

    But on this thread we cannot even attempt the first hurdle, since truthfulness cannot even be attempted until we overcome sly insinuation and begin to communicate plainly.

    • Paul Barbara

      @ Clark March 19, 2017 at 12:00
      ‘..truthfulness cannot even be attempted until we overcome sly insinuation and begin to communicate plainly…’
      You seem to be wasting your own and my time, plus comment space, with spurious stuff like that.

    • Bobm


      Whenever I can, I volunteer.
      Hence my irregular posts, here.

      I hesitate to ask why you endlessly clog up this thread, as you seem to do.

  • Clark

    How utterly, miserably disappointing. False accusations of anti-Semitism are constantly used to attempt to discredit those who criticise Israeli foreign policy and US support thereof. And here awe have the anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists, busily creating justification for those false claims.

    People who can’t see themselves for part of the problem, and actually believe that thy’re helping to provide some sort of solution.

    No hope for humanity.

      • Paul Barbara

        Not at all, unless telling the truth about historical facts is so classed (as seems to be the case with some folks!).
        If people generally understood what really happened on June 8th 1967, it would go a huge way in sorting out the Middle East today.

        • Clark

          “…as seems to be the case with some folks!”

          Innuendo again. NO. The assertion that the United States is controlled by Israel is an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory. Paul Barbara made that assertion here:

          “I also predict the fall of the ‘Evil Empire’, [ie. the US] …Like their controllers, they have a ‘Sampson Option’, and will use it”

          And going on and on about the USS Liberty, over and over again, as if it had some bearing upon 9/11. It doesn’t.

          Then there’s the sort of evidence we’re supposed to accept. Some European performance artists were permitted to use unprofitable space in one of the Twin Towers. Some of them had, allegedly, been to a party at a prominent Israeli’s flat (an Israeli in New York! Shock! Horror!) and one of their surnames was “Urban”, which is the same as in “Urban Moving Systems”, allegedly a Mossad front company. Therefore, a load of empty cardboard boxes in the unprofitable space that had contained mains electrical distribution components (as can be checked from the supplier’s catalogue) just had to be radio-controlled demolition components, and these performance artists had rigged at least that Tower for controlled demolition in the few minutes that they performed a publicity stunt on the outside of the building.

          That is an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory, because merely having attended an Israeli’s party is taken as incriminating. It’s circular reasoning, too.

          Then there’s the spoof document “Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars An Introduction Programming Manual Operations Research Technical Manual TW-SW7905.1”, again linked by Paul Barbara, here:

          Loosely based upon parts of the anti-Semitic forgery “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion”, it mentions finance, but only one financier in particular. You’ll never guess… Mayer Amschel Rothschild, 1743 – 1812.

          Before you start lecturing me, I’m well aware that pro-Israel and pro-neocon propagandists use accusations of anti-Semitism to further their agenda, and rather than just bitch I try to do something about it. For instance, at the following link you can see the changes I made to a very cleverly constructed misrepresentation of Paul Flynn on the Wiki entry about him:

          I was aware that discussion of 9/11 was riddled with so-called “conspiracy theories”, but when Reverend Stephen Sizer was accused of supporting anti-Semitic conspiracy theories for linking to a particular article about 9/11, I took it as the usual propagandistic exaggeration. But I’m appalled at what I’ve been finding on this thread. Here I am trying to contribute to solutions, while Paul Barbara and his ilk are busy contributing to the problem; creating justifications for the propagandists, making ammo for them to fire.

          Paul, I can’t tell whether you’re actually anti-Semitic or have just been taken in by some of the anti-Semitism that runs rampant, but you need to put your house in order.

          • Paul Barbara

            I know what you are up to – trying to smear me with anti-semitism, so as to get my comments removed or worse.
            Ariel Sharon said it himself (though of course some people try to deny it, as they do all highly embarrassing quotes):
            Ariel Sharon:” We, the ***ish People, Control America, and The Americans Know it”
            There are a number of other disgustingly racist, anti-Semitic quotes on there as well, but anti-Semitic against the other Semites, the Arabs. But perhaps they don’t count.
            I will repeat – stating OBVIOUS facts, believed, written and said by highly intelligent and aware Americans and others, does NOT constitute anti-Semitism.
            And I certainly don’t go ‘on and on’ about the USS Liberty, though I should, because if the truth were known to ordinary Americans, and to the ordinary military, US aid and support to Israel would stop dead.
            They would no longer be shielded from the cosequences of their brutality to Palestinians, and theft of their land.
            If you think THAT is anti-Semitic, I personally saw an old newsreel clip of Moshe Dyan being interviewed; he was in military combat gear, standing near his jeep; he already had the eye-patch (he lost his eye in 1941). I think the interview was in the late 1940’s; anyhow he was asked by the reporter/cameraman if he thought there would ever be peace between the *ews and Arabs, and replied very frankly: ‘No, because we stole their land’.
            I repeat, that is not hearsay; I saw the interview on TV and recorded it on VHS, but though I still have it, I couldn’t find it as I have too many unmarked VHS recordings.
            Indicate to me the links where I go ‘on and on’ – shouldn’t be difficult, if I do it as often as you say.
            And the good Reverend Sizer lost his job, for telling the truth.

          • Clark

            “I know what you are up to – trying to smear me with anti-Semitism, so as to get my comments removed or worse”

            No. I’m TRYING to point out two things; that there really are anti-Semitic theories that make accusations against Israel on the basis of no real evidence, and that consequently there are both pitfalls and traps, and quite a few actors just waiting for you to stumble into a pitfall in the hope they can nudge you on into a trap.

            So what that Ariel Sharon said that? Tell me, was he by any chance boasting to his constituency? Israel clearly has disproportionately large influence, but the US is still by far the more powerful country, and clearly it is not “controlled”. But the claim that Jews control everything IS an anti-Semitic trope which has been promoted again and again over centuries. By repeating it, you’re laying yourself open to accusations of anti-Semitism, and I’m trying to warn you.

            Still, if you think of Jews as “Christ killers” (is this what you mean by “Luciferians”?), probably no rational discussion is possible.

  • Bobm

    “But I’m appalled at what I’ve been finding on this thread. Here I am trying to contribute to solutions, while Paul Barbara and his ilk are busy contributing to the problem; creating justifications for the propagandists, making ammo for them to fire.

    Paul, I can’t tell whether you’re actually anti-Semitic or have just been taken in by some of the anti-Semitism that runs rampant, but you need to put your house in order.”

    Thank you, Clark, for making my point for me. Please go and clog up another thread.

    • Clark

      Sorry Bob, what point was that? You don’t seem to have made one, and you didn’t answer my question about what direction you think discussion should take.

    • Clark

      I don’t think the thread is “clogging up”, there’s no restriction on the flow of comments. Anti-Semitism and avoiding its use as a propaganda tool both seem to me like subjects relevant to discussion of 9/11.

        • Clark

          Did Bill Cooper die in a shoot-out with police officers? Can you link to the CNN piece he referred to?

          Yes I knew about the Israelis deported for spying. There was widespread foreknowledge of 9/11.

          Ten minutes in and I’m getting bored with the wrestling. Yes, I knew the political class were as thick as thieves, and that Republican and Democrat parties alike support Israel to the hilt. I agree it’s wrong, and that neocon and neo-Zionist objectives converge, to destabilise and wage war in the Middle East

          Oh, now we’re onto the supposed “pool of molten steel”. Yes, there was some steel that appeared to have been partially evaporated – from Building 7. Regarding the Twin Towers, Leslie Robertson reported a trickle of molten metal, and the flowing metal that the firefighters saw couldn’t have been steel, unless the “channel rails” were made of something with an even higher melting point – that’s just basic physics. I’ve examined the building collapses in considerable detail and concluded that damage and fire initiated total collapse of the Twin Towers, but that Building 7’s collapse remains inadequately explained, But how does any of this bear upon who was responsible?

          Now were onto the dramatic music and a load of stills that have no evidential bearing upon 9/11. Christopher Bollyn is saying that the steel of the WTC turned into dust, which is untrue. He’s saying that nothing was found of the victims in the Twin Towers, which is untrue. He’s saying that all the dust was scorching hot, which is untrue.

          Now he’s talking about the out-of-court compensation settlements; I knew about those. Who would the other defendants have been? He’s talking about the hijackers and saying that airport security didn’t stop them – so he presumably accepts that hijackings occurred. He’s saying that Larry Silverstein made a profit on the insurance, but I don’t know how true that is – I’m certainly not going to take Bollyn’s word for it.

          He’s just called Larry Silverstein “the godfather of the 9/11 attacks”, but has presented no evidence against him. Now he’s mentioning all sorts of rich and prominent Israelis, but presenting no evidence against them either. Accusation without evidence looks like prejudice, doesn’t it?

          Yes I know that 9/11 was very advantageous for both neocon and neo-Zionist objectives. In that regard and others, the official account of 9/11 would closely resemble the proxy extremist actions against Libya and Syria, would it not?

          • Paul Barbara

            @ Clark March 25, 2017 at 04:52
            My comment at Paul Barbara March 23, 2017 at 00:41 was put under moderation, but has now appeared, so the mods obviously don’t consider my comment (and others that have appeared) as ‘anti Semitic’.So it looks like you are crying ‘wolf’, barking up a gum tree, once again, as is your wont.

          • Clark

            Just because some moderators at this blog have approved some comments does not mean that your opinions and style of argument are immune from attracting criticism for being anti-Semitic – whether they are actually motivated by anti-Semitism or not.

            The point I’m making is that accusations of anti-Semitism ARE used as a propaganda tool (as well as sometimes being justified), so it’s important to present only well-evidenced arguments.

    • Clark

      I just looked, and that’s a five hour video.

      I don’t even have sufficient space for it on my system at present; I’m hopefully doing a file system clean-up over the next week or so. I don’t just sit and watch videos and form an “impression” – that would just be like watching telly. Videos only have evidential value when they are eye-witness vids, or when they record someone’s lecture or testimony. Consequently, to assess evidence presented as video I download it and make notes with time references as I watch. For a five hour vid that will take me a couple of working days at least.

      If the video has evidential value, it will be by referring to documents or testimony, all of which should be available elsewhere. Can you not summarise and provide links? Even if you do, I’m not moving on until we’ve dealt with the previous one.

    • Clark

      Incidentally, you’ve a bit of a nerve accusing me of “clogging up the thread” while yourself posing links that take five hours just to watch!

    • Clark

      Regarding the attack on Pearl Harbour, I believe there is a contested historical perspective that the attack was deliberately unopposed to create a public pretext for bringing the US into WWII, and I know that the neocon PNAC wrote that a “new Pearl Harbour” would be required to create a pretext for the implementation of the policies outlined in their paper Rebuilding America’s Defenses. That’s a very tenuous link, and ogically, proving something about the Pearl Harbour attack proves nothing about 9/11.

      I hope that saves some time 🙂

      • Bobm

        You should watch the video, before you complain.
        The idea that its length excuses:
        -your not watching it;
        –your posting a lengthy complaint;
        really makes my point.

        Hasta la vista, Clark.

        • Clark

          What POINT, Bob? You STILL haven’t stated any point, except that you allegedly have one.

          “Hasta la vista, Clark”

          Well the most popular current reference for that is from Terminator. Do you mean you’d like to kill me? Because I’m not complying quickly enough? Who does that remind me of? Oh yes; fascists; that’s what they do.

          Try improving your image by discussing the previous vid.

          • Bobm

            As you know
            It means “See you later..”.

            Please now watch the film, and comment, as you consider appropriate.

      • Paul Barbara

        @ Clark March 25, 2017 at 19:20
        Of course evidence will be contested – that’s how lawyers make pots.
        But if you were to read ‘Day of Deceit’ by Robert B. Stinnett, I think the evidence he comes up with is overwhelming. He is a very highly decorated US Naval Officer, retired, and is still alive (he writes for the ‘Lighthouse’, a right-wing website) and he does not blame FDR, he is just presenting the truth.

        • Clark

          Fair enough, but logically, whatever the book shows about the Pearl Harbour attack still tells us nothing about 9/11.

          That’s the thing. You need more than suspicion. You need a document, or an order, or a leak, or someone caught in some act – as best you can, you need to show who did what in helping to achieve the outcomes.

          • Clark

            Kempe, that’s a good article; thanks. I know next to nothing about the Pearl Harbor attack, but the “conspiracy theorist” attitude towards evidence is well described. Various comments on this thread had reminded me of creationist arguments:

            “One of the things that is most notable about the way the “FDR knew” theory is sustained is that its methodology parallels that of so-called creation science. The trick in both instances is to assiduously ignore all the mountains of evidence in favor of the theory you are trying to disprove and to focus instead on tiny apparent discrepancies and supposed “missing links” in the record. “True to the M.O. of all conspiracy theorists,” Budiansky notes, “the ABSENCE of further documentary evidence actually confirms [the] thesis by proving that a ‘cover-up’ has taken place.” “

          • Paul Barbara

            @ Kempe March 26, 2017 at 03:23
            I suggest you read the book before commenting. Throwing up an actress’ account against a highly decorated US Naval Officer (Retd.) who spent 17 years researching his book doesn’t cut the mustard with me.
            And Stinnett was not hostile to FDR; he thought what he did was right. So he would hardly ‘make up ‘evidence’ to smear FDR.
            ‘…Anyway because other false flag events may have happened in the past is not evidence that 9/11 was a false flag.’
            Absolutely correct; but given the long history of the US (and indeed other countries also) using ‘False Flag’ operations to create a ‘Casus belli’ or an excuse to crack down on peoples’ civil rights, it is a good indicator that the same occurred on 9/11 – after all, it is obvious the Corporations, Banksters and Milittary wanted an excuse to attack the Middle East, for oil, to Balkanise Israel’s potential enemies, and to position strategic bases in the highly oil-rich and Geo-strategic Middle East. Read Zbigniew Brzezinski’s ‘Grand Chessboard’, and see Wesley Clarks ‘7 governments in 5 years’.
            The ‘False Flag’ trick almost always works (a very rare exception was the USS Liberty attack), so why change it?

          • Clark

            “… an actress’ account against a highly decorated US Naval Officer”


            “Judith Greer is a writer who lives near Charleston, S.C. She is a former Air Force officer and graduate of the University of Southern California’s School of International Relations”

            Two people with the same name? Oh, no, that never happens in “conspiracy theorists” world.

            Greer goes through many specific points. You’ve got the book, you should provide the references to show where her points are wrong.

            “…the long history of the US (and indeed other countries also) using ‘False Flag’ operations to create a ‘Casus belli’ or an excuse to crack down on peoples’ civil rights, it is a good indicator that the same occurred on 9/11”

            Not at all, but that doesn’t stop you insisting it’s a proven fact. Your whole argument is back-to-front. You start with your conclusion, and then use it to bolster all sorts of things you present as “evidence”.

            You’ll no doubt miss my point yet again. You’ll take this comment as me “supporting the establishment”. It’s not. By definition, the establishment hold the most power. To effectively counter their narrative you need to present argument and evidence of the very highest standard. Oh you probably don’t care whether you lose because you just enjoy the fighting.

  • Paul Barbara

    @ Clark March 26, 2017 at 19:39
    The ‘actress’ was also an author; I still don’t know if it is the same person; perhaps not. I did try to ascertain if it was the same Greer’.
    Anyhow, there is no way she can compete with a highly decorated Naval Officer, (Retd.) who researched his book for 17 years.
    So far as I am concerned ‘…To effectively counter their narrative you need to present argument and evidence of the very highest standard….’, that is precisely what I did; I gave the most scholarly, comprehensive evidence available, Robert Stinnett’s book.
    Of course there are ‘debunkers’ out there, paid to defend the Establishment narrative.
    I have already read the book, and gave it to a visiting Japanese survivor of the atom bomb attacks, so I can’t painstakenly scour the book to counter the ‘debunkers’. No matter what I came up with, you, Kempe and others would insist on supporting the Establishment narrative.
    Understand one thing: I do not comment on here simply to try to convince you and Kempe; there are other people who are not so hidebound in support of the PTB who read these threads as well, thank God.

    I notice you haven’t come up with all the comments showing me going ‘on and on’ about the USS Liberty – hardly surprising, as I don’t.
    And you can’t include this one, as you made you ‘accusation’ prior to this comment.
    But in the spirit of giving the best evidence possible, I have previously quoted Peter Hounam’s book ‘Operation Cyanide’, re the Liberty.
    I am fully aware that there have been many debunking articles, hardly surprising, seeing the damning conclusion Hounam comes up with, from extremely good sources.

    • Paul Barbara

      And of course, there is the ‘balance of probability’ argument; Corporations and Banksters love wars, to sell arms, capture markets and sources of raw materials, and for subsequent ‘reconstruction’ contracts – and they control the governments.
      The military High Command also like wars; without them, they’d be out of a job. They provide the best opportunities for rapid promotions, and the preparation for them provides lots of new, ever more lethal ‘toys’.

    • lysias

      Author Joan Mellen accepts Hounam’s theory about the USS Liberty and furnishes additional evidence for it in her recent book Faustian Bargains: Lyndon Johnson and Mac Wallace in the Robber Baron Culture of Texas.

    • lysias

      Perhaps the strongest reason for believing Stinnett’s case, in my opinion, is that it was accepted by Gore Vidal. Vidal, as the son of a cabinet officer in FDR’s administration, the grandson of a leading Democratic senator, Thomas Gore, after whom he was named, and a graduate of Sidwell and St. Albans schools, was tied in to the whole D.C. establishment, especially on the Democratic side. He was well aware of what people in the D.C. establishment were telling each other.

  • Clark

    Me, March 26, 19:39:

    You’ll no doubt miss my point yet again. You’ll take this comment as me “supporting the establishment”

    Paul Barbara, March 27, 01:24:

    “…there are other people who are not so hidebound in support of the PTB”


    It’s not actually impossible to extinguish a fire with gasoline. If you have enough gasoline and can dump it onto the fire fast enough, you could smother the fire without the gasoline getting hot enough to burst into flames. But you’d have replaced the original fire with a much larger fire hazard.

    Governments bullshit. You can attempt to smother government bullshit with counter-bullshit, but the inevitable result is a much larger pile of bullshit than if you’d done nothing at all.

    “Alt-Bullshit, Justice, Peace”?

    What do I mean by bullshit? This –

    “The ‘actress’ was also an author; I still don’t know if it is the same person; perhaps not”


    “Throwing up an actress’ account against a highly decorated US Naval Officer (Retd.) who spent 17 years researching his book doesn’t cut the mustard with me”

    That’s bullshitting. It’s not a lie because Paul Barbara has no respect for truthfulness; if you don’t care what the truth is, you can’t be accused of lying. The defining characteristic of bullshitting is that truthfulness does not matter, that the only value of language is its power to manipulate others.

    But many people do not wish to be manipulated. They do not want their mind filled with fallacies just because those fallacies contradict some other set of fallacies..

    TRUTH, justice, peace – we’re still struggling with the first hurdle.

    • Paul Barbara

      Not a lie, just an error; someone with the same name. And it has very little material importance, because the ‘lady’ did not research the subject herself, but relied on other people’s opinion.
      Whereas Robert Stinnett spent 17 years researching his book; I wonder how much time Greer spent reading ‘debunking’ government-friendly hit pieces?
      As I said, you would be in a much stronger position to comment on the book if you read it. You admitted yourself you knew ‘next to nothing’ about Pearl, yet spring to accept some hit-piece articles, rather than a well researched book. Slight pro-PTB bias there, I should say.

      • Clark

        The point is that you described the author as an actress despite the description of her in the article. It was convenient in order to dismiss her, so you made something up and presented it as fact – that is bullshitting.

        “Slight pro-PTB bias there, I should say.”

        No. I appreciated Greer’s article because it was well-argued and raised criticisms that can actually be checked. It’s not about supporting “the PTB”. I’m not even saying that Greer’s article is right. I’m saying that raises specific, well-defined points in such a way as to be checkable.

        • Paul Barbara

          @ Clark March 27, 2017 at 22:12
          If you say it’s bullshitting, then you must be right – that’s one thing you’re an expert on, being full of it.
          Yes, her article CAN be checked. But of course you didn’t do it. Stinnett’s book can also be checked, and you didn’t read that either.

        • Clark

          Paul, I’m not particularly interested in the attack on Pearl Harbour; the world has more serious problems now.

          Among the more serious problems are people’s attitude to media. Most people don’t think; they just pick from a menu and eat whatever’s served up. You just make unusual choices; you’ve already admitted you’re not interested in critical thinking.

          So eat, drink and be merry…

  • Clark

    Kempe, same goes for you. Not about this, but a couple of months ago I caught you bullshitting about nuclear physics. When challenged, you just sidled off.

      • Clark

        Kempe, February 7, 20:55:

        “Fissile materials decay, radiation is the product of this decay as is the heat which is harnessed in nuclear power stations. Criticality occurs when the chain reaction inside a reactor becomes self sustaining, it’s the normal operating mode and unlikely to happen by accident in a damaged reactor.”

        Nuclear fuel decays so slowly that it could not be the source of power in a nuclear reactor. Decay heat (of fission products) is very much secondary to heat of fission. Criticality (indeed, prompt criticality) apparently occurred at Chernobyl after the reactor core had been blown out of the building. And decay seems very unlikely to account for the sudden increase in radiation at Fukushima earlier this year.

        On another subject, I found that there was a significant increase in thyroid cancers in people exposed to the aftermath of 9/11.

        • Paul Barbara

          @ Clark March 27, 2017 at 21:54
          ‘…On another subject, I found that there was a significant increase in thyroid cancers in people exposed to the aftermath of 9/11.’
          I’ve got an open mind on the mini-nukes under the Twin Towers; I’m going to a meeting shortly on that very issue.

          • Clark

            Mini-nukes theory is a non-starter. The Twin Towers very visibly collapsed from the damaged zones downward. Pre-buried nukes would have blown them upward. Oh you can speculate about some unknown type of nuke, but then you may as well say that faeries did it; neither theory is testable.

            But Kempe claimed there was no increase in thyroid cancers, but there was – though not nearly as much as if nukes had been detonated.

            Really, Paul; the collapses of the Twin Towers do not defy physics. John Goss cleared off after I got him to admit that the floor assemblies could only support about eleven times their own weight, and has avoided engagement ever since. The rest of the collapses follow from the relative weakness of the floor assemblies.

          • John Goss

            John Goss did not clear off. He just laughed at your idea that the floors could have destroyed the superstructure. Still laughing in fact. 😀 😀 😀

          • Clark

            Charming, John. You don’t seem to know how to have a technical discussion.

            The floors didn’t destroy the cores or the perimeters. The core of WTC2 from the damage zone down can be seen standing as the dust clears away from the top of where the building was; see 17:38 in this video:


            See my comment here for notes:


            If you want to understand the collapses of the Twin Towers, all you have to do is watch the collapse videos carefully and do some rough calculation. First the section above the damaged zone begins to descend. Shortly after that, the internal collapse of floor assemblies initiates just below the damaged zone, indicated by horizontal ejections. Fresh ejections initiate beneath in a wave that accelerates downwards. This is the internal collapse of floor assemblies. Unsurprisingly, it is the fastest component of the collapse, since the mostly concrete floor assemblies presented the least resistance in the whole structure.

            Behind (ie. above) the internal collapse follows the external “peeling” of the perimeter, which relied on the floor assemblies for lateral support. Without the floor assemblies it began to fall outward, breaking into sections under its own immense weight. Photos of the debris indicate failure of the bolts which connected the box-columns vertically.

            The core stood longest, presumably undercut by the crush of half a million tonnes of concrete all around it.

          • Clark

            Bobm, I’m guessing that you tried to link to your own Inbox. You don’t want that to work, or everyone could read your e-mail (not just NSA, CIA, GCHQ etc. etc. etc).

          • Clark

            Oh I read that article months back; nothing new there. Europhysics News didn’t seem to realise what they were publishing and ended up rather embarrassed – link available.

            The NSA etc. don’t read all the e-mail; they couldn’t, there’s just far too much of it. They store it, and only read what keyword scans flags up, I should think. But we know from Snowden that the NSA are just customers; the contractors get primary access, and their motivations are commercial rather than political.

          • Paul Barbara

            @ Bobm March 28, 2017 at 20:41
            The first still doesn’t work, but the Europhysics one does.

  • Trowbridge H. Ford

    Do you want me to bring its content up when I have dinner with David Knapp this evening. He is one of my nephews.

    The internet is such a small world, as we have never apparently run into one another before.

      • Paul Barbara

        Bit of algebra: X + handful = 2,834 A&E + 21,457 supporters (where ‘X’ = you)!
        Is that technical enough for you? Still, you could always fall back on ‘yes, but everyone thought the sun went round the earth, till I discovered otherwise’!

        • glenn_uk

          All the same, Paul – you have to watch out for the “appeal to popularity/ authority” logical fallacy. Popular appeal (just about) voted that damned fool Dubbya Bush, and now Trump into office. The Sun is still the most popular paper among the salt-of-the-earth working class, while The Mail holds sway among those who like to think of themselves above the general riff-raff.

          Just look at the height of the piles of these rags next time you’re in a newsagent, compared with the thin offering for quality papers – if they are available at all.

          • Paul Barbara

            @ glenn_uk March 29, 2017 at 03:18
            I’m not quite sure what you mean; my point is Clark (with no degree in either subject) and some others think they know better architectural and engineering characteristics of high rise steel framed buildings than getting on for 3,000 real, accredited architects and engineers. But it’s not a popular position for them to take – some have lost their jobs, and I’m sure (though I have no evidence) that many have been ‘blackballed’ by government contractors.
            And it’s not ‘popular’ among the majority of the brainwashed masses – I know from my personal campaigns to raise awareness. I’m known as ‘conspiracy Paul’ (used to be ‘nutty Paul’) in my local pub.
            As for quality papers, you mean like Pravda and Izvestia? Not many of them about at all!

          • Dave

            As 9/11 and other events are cast in the context of between “them and us” its understandable that the general public will recoil from a message that seems to favour “them” rather than “us”, unless they have a particular interest in the subject. So although the temptation is the point out the obvious nonsense of it all, a more softly, softly approach is needed. I.e. point out a something in a round about and curious sort of way and ask if they can explain it, and then work backwards, so they can think it through and come to a conclusion, rather than being told up front by a “conspiracy theorist” as they may dismiss it out of hand without thinking for a range of reasons.

          • Clark

            Architects and structural engineers absolutely SHOULD lose their jobs if, for instance, they accept Chandler’s “Downward Acceleration” argument, or if they deny that the Twin Towers could have undergone progressive collapse. It’s important that architects and structural engineers are COMPETENT, because the safety of buildings does actually matter.

          • Paul Barbara

            @ Dave March 29, 2017 at 11:09
            That approach could work with people who are willing and able to think for themselves – unfortunately they are few and far between.
            I only found out recently that the US arranged for firebrand Muslim missionaries were sent into many of the Mosques in America, built by radicalised Black converts to Islam, to preach Jihad during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. The people they recruited were sent first to guerrilla training camps in Pakistan, and later training camps were set up in the US. The brainwashed new Jihadis were paid thousands through the CIA, but most did not realise who was behind the scheme.
            Black youth have been serially targeted for decades, or I should say centuries. In WWI, WWII, Korea, and Vietnam they were second-class cannon fodder. In the filthy Iran/Contra affair, there was a third leg to it, not often mentioned – the huge amounts of cocaine shipped into the States by CIA agents and assets, which created the absolutely huge epidemic in cocaine use, mainly targeted at the Black ghettos (as had the heroin during the same CIA importation of heroin during the Vietnam war (some imported in body bags of dead soldiers, and even inside the bodies – I wonder what the dead soldiers relatives and loved ones would think of that if they knew)). Yet still the youth haven’t woken up, and go off to fight Uncle Sam’s dirty wars and interventions.
            The same type of thing goes on here in the UK; some may wonder why extreme ‘Preachers of hate’ don’t get their collars felt here, but it is just radicalising at presumably MI5’s behest, to get new Jihadis for foreign interventions abroad, and to groom patsies to be groomed for ‘False Flag’ attacks or hoaxes here.

          • Clark

            Paul Barbara, 15:03 above – precisely, so I don’t understand why you’re so antagonistic to the idea that 9/11 could have been a similar type of operation.

            Technicality – if such operations are incited by extremist clerics and perpetrated by those they indoctrinate, is it really appropriate to refer to them as “false flag”?

    • Paul Barbara

      @ Kempe March 29, 2017 at 10:05
      I’m sure A&E will tear to pieces the twaddle of these two lying government stooges. As these are technical issues, I’ll leave it to the experts to deal with, experts who haven’t sold their souls, experts who are not sociopaths and who care about lives and government crimes and treason.

    • Clark

      Hmmm. Bažant and Le’s latest offering is again based on the “crush-down-then-crush-up” model. Since that model fails to match observation, this paper will not definitively refute AE9/11″Truth”.

      I’m mystified as to why Bažant repeatedly defends that theory.

      • Clark

        Kempe, Bažant’s latest defence of the “crush-down-then-crush-up” model does not “put the record straight”, because that model asserts that the perimeter and core were crushed alongside the floor assemblies. Any fool can watch the videos and see that the floors went first, followed by the perimeters, and finally the cores. Further, Bažant’s model requires that the majority of steel uprights would be buckled, but we can see from the debris pile that the vast majority of them were still straight, the interconnecting bolts having failed.

      • Paul Barbara

        @ Clark March 29, 2017 at 15:01
        They have no choice but to stick to their (lying) guns – what else can they do, admit the truth?
        The pair of them should be pensioned off and sent to retire in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya or Yemen, so they can live out their days wondering at the atrocities they have tried to justify (insofar as all wars and interventions have been done under the ‘umbrella’ of 9/11, though other issues are used in each circumstance. like WMD’s in Iraq – which would not have cut the mustard without the lies of 9/11).

        • Clark

          Paul, it’s not as simple as that. It’s not a binary choice between “crush-down-then-crush-up” versus “controlled demolition”. BOTH are wrong. The observations and debris don’t support either.

        • Clark

          I’ve no idea what Bažant’s up to; it doesn’t make sense. He’s eighty so I suppose he could be losing it; got really stubborn and refuses to give up on earlier work. Wouldn’t be the first time that had happened to an old professor.

  • John Goss

    According to a communication received this morning from A & E for 9/11 Truth there are now 3,000 architects and engineers who support A & E for 9/11 Truth. This article was co-authored by 4 of them including two former university chairs and they even mention that some of it is based on speculation.

    I have no doubt that detractors on this blog will be able to easily dismantle the arguments of such specialists.

    Incidentally last month I posted a comment about how structurally strong the twin towers were with their inner and outer structures.

    It includes a photo during construction which demonstrates just how solidly-engineered the buildings were. Instead of noticing this fact Clark went off on one of his pet NIST theories about how weak the floors were. It was of course more nonsense but showed how certain people with pet theories cannot see beyond their own narrow myopic field of vision and address the issue – were they strong or not. Such visionaries the scientific world can do well without.

    • Clark

      John, I can barely stand your aggression. PLEASE give it a break. What happened, happened; I just try to work out what I can.

      I can’t defend NIST’s version of the collapse mechanism because NIST didn’t propose one; they copped out beyond collapse initiation. If you’d read the NIST report you’d know that.

        • John Goss

          Don’t be such an objectionable and supercilious know-all. Nothing you have ever written on here gives you the right to preach down to me. Everybody knows that the NIST report stopped at the point of collapse but only because Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth pointed it out when they dismantled the official version. You just jumped on the bandwagon much later. You supported the NIST version for ages before that if I recall correctly.

          You call me aggressive yet you brought my name into the conversation yesterday claiming some kind of victory which could only satisfy somebody like you. That was despite the fact that because of your nonsense ideas I stopped commenting on here and will do again forthwith.

    • Paul Barbara

      @ John Goss March 29, 2017 at 15:08

      From your first link, , a few simple double and triple this, halve and quadruply decrease that, and ‘Bingo’! – we have a ‘workable’ scenario, just like they did re WTC 7.
      But our resiident ‘debunkers’ probably won’t address such issues – top would come to a standstill after one or two floors? Utter bunkum, they will doubtless snort (if they respond). Plenty more ‘goodies’ in the article! to an ‘elephants in the room’ question, our sleuths could well reply (if they were honest): ‘I can’t see any – by the way, how do you like my new-fangled blinkers? Amazing things! I bought them from Tony Bliar!’:

      ‘In January 2011 [11] Bažant and another graduate student of his, Jia-Liang Le, attempted to dismiss the lack-of-deceleration criticism by claiming there would be a velocity loss of only about 3%, which would be too small to be observed by the camera resolution. Le
      and Bažant also claimed conservation-of-momentum velocity loss would be only 1.1%. However, it appears that Le and Bažant
      erroneously used an upper section mass of 54.18×10 6th kg and an impacted floor mass of just 0.627×10 6th kg, which contradicted the floor mass of 3.87×10 6th kg Bažant had used in earlier papers. The former floor mass is representative of the concrete floor slab only, whereas the latter floor mass includes all the other materials on the floor. Correcting this alone increases the conservation-of-momentum velocity loss by more than 6 times, to a value of 7.1%. Additionally, the column energy dissipation has been shown to be far more significant than Bažant claimed. Researchers have since provided calculations showing that a natural collapse over one story would not only decelerate, but would actually arrest after one or two stories of fall (see Fig. 4) [2, 10]……’

      • Clark

        Yeah I’ve read Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis by Gregory Szuladzi Anthony Szambotinski and Richard Johns, in which those criticisms were made. They’re criticising Bažant’s “crush-down-then-crush-up” model.

        What can I say? They found a very elaborate way of shooting fish in a barrel. You only have to look at the videos and the debris to see that “crush-down-then-crush-up” is wrong.

        Don’t even bother defending the “missing jolt” argument. Any conceivable use of explosives would have produced even bigger jolts! The arguments have got a long way from reality, on both sides.

  • Paul Barbara

    @ Clark March 29, 2017 at 14:42
    ‘Architects and structural engineers absolutely SHOULD lose their jobs if, for instance, they accept Chandler’s “Downward Acceleration” argument, or if they deny that the Twin Towers could have undergone progressive collapse. It’s important that architects and structural engineers are COMPETENT, because the safety of buildings does actually matter.’

    So how come they keep joining A&E? Are you suggesting they are all masochists?
    And how come so many of them have served for years in their professions, and no one has noticed their pathetic inadequacies?

      • Paul Barbara

        @ Clark March 29, 2017 at 16:02
        Sure they are, because from their point of view WTC 7 is the weakest link in the government’s ‘narrative’.
        And they are doing a mighty fine job getting their message out, and new recruits help to prove their good judgement.
        For ‘Pilots’, the Pentagon is the weakest link. It only needs one major breakthrough on big issues like these, and the whole government narrative starts to unravel like the treacherous baloney it is.

        • Clark

          “It only needs one major breakthrough on big issues like these, and the whole government narrative starts to unravel like the treacherous baloney it is”

          Don’t be so sure of that. The propagandists are top professionals. They know full well that the most effective propaganda is based on emotional appeal, omission and minimal distortion. One important principle which I expect to have been considered is “graceful degradation”, ie. don’t build your system to be globally vulnerable to single-point failures.

          Twin Tower demolition theory has immense emotional appeal to a specific minority, but hardly any substance, which is why I expect it has been amplified. Building 7 hardly figures in the official narrative at all.

    • Clark

      See, the “official explanations” might be wrong (as I believe), but anyone with a bit of physics nous can see that the Twin Towers could have collapsed as recorded. Engineers don’t care much for “official explanations” anyway; so long as something doesn’t defy physical law, who cares what governments say? Governments rarely make much sense in any case, and often ignore engineers on behalf of the Treasury.

      Building 7, on the other hand, requires complicated mental gymnastics to imagine how it could have fallen like that.

      • Paul Barbara

        @ Clark March 29, 2017 at 16:12
        ‘…Building 7, on the other hand, requires complicated mental gymnastics to imagine how it could have fallen like that.’

        ‘..complicated mental gymnastics..’ seem to be your forte; you brush off the iron micro-spheres, found in all the tested dust samples, which are typical of thermite (thermate/nano-thermate), and of which there is no alternative explanation of their presence to date. Jet fuel and office furnishings cannot burn hot enough to melt steel (except in a blast furnace, which the WTC’s were not), never mind shoot out billions of micro-spheres.
        And the pools and streams of molten steel or iron witnessed by many cleanup and First Responders mean nothing to you; they must have been mistaken, or confused, like Barry Jennings (RIP).

        • Clark

          I dismiss Twin Tower demolition theory because I can watch the collapses captured on video, and they are consistent with progressive collapse, but inconsistent with any kind of chemical cutting.

          I went looking for evidence of “pools of molten steel” and found evidence only of trickles. Iron microspheres have various problems including multiple other possible sources.

          But I’m not like you. I don’t automatically trust the opposition, and even if I did, I wouldn’t trust their informational environment. Twin Tower demolition theory has been the biggest single impediment to getting 9/11 issues taken seriously. That may or may not be coincidental.

        • Clark

          “…except in a blast furnace, which the WTC’s were not”

          That’s something I’ve wondered about. The core of WTC1 seemed to fail before the perimeter did (the antenna started to fall first; another NIST omission). Could convection-driven updraughts in the core lift-shafts have driven localised higher temperature combustion?

          It still wouldn’t explain iron microspheres, but there were plenty of welds in the WTC prefabricated steel members.

      • Paul Barbara

        @ Clark March 29, 2017 at 16:12
        ‘…and often ignore engineers on behalf of the Treasury….’
        Interesting. Any examples you can think of?

        • Clark

          Space Shuttle Challenger springs to mind. In the UK, Train Protection System or whatever it was called. The total disregard for all UK working groups on the design of nuclear reactors. The US government’s disregard for Alvin Weinberg, who said the Pressurised Water Reactor (his own design) was not safe enough for civilian use. In other fields, the UK government’s contempt for professor Nutt and his assessment of the relative safety of recreational drugs. Those are just off the top of my head.

          • Paul Barbara

            @ Clark March 29, 2017 at 17:14
            Yes, good points. In the Challenger, nuclear reactors and relative safety of recreational drugs, these were all government led issues, which they pushed no matter what the consequences; just the same as research indicating the dangers of GMO’s, herbicides and pesticides are ignored due to Corporation bribery.
            But what would have been the driving force for underfunding the iconic WTC Towers, which were the highest buildings in the world when built? If they were as weak as you seem to think, they could have been blown over in hurricanes, and then where would US prestige have been? ‘Gerry-builders’, the world would have scoffed.
            No, they were well over-built, with enormous built-in capacity for limited failures to be catered for by the interconnections and over specifications. The ‘gerry-built’ story is just another of what the CIA guy exlained (in a recent post) of ‘red herring’ narratives, to confuse the public and investigators, as possible ‘limited hangouts’.

          • Clark

            The Twin Towers were a clever design, but you only have to look at it to see how cheap it was. No structural cross-members outside the core, higher-tensile steel so that 40% less steel could be used overall.

            “Over-built” they definitely were not. They were just the cheapest way of piling the maximum number of wage-slaves onto the smallest footprint of highest rent real-estate in the world.

          • Clark

            The design of the Twin Towers was only approved because the Port Authority was immune to city and state building codes. Some components only had a two-hour fire rating; full evacuation was known to take about three and a half hours.

            That’s why the compensation was settled out-of-court. Those responsible for the buildings wanted to blame airport security, and vice-versa. Negative publicity from that potential battle was presumably calculated to be more expensive than sharing the costs of compensation.

          • Bobm


            In light of your recent posts I would be interested to know what guiding principles you follow.
            Could you set them out, for us?

            [I dare say that other contributors would be willing.]

        • Clark

          Similarly, refer to Spycatcher for the contempt of MI5 Oxford humanities graduates to the introduction of a scientist into their ranks. That’s changed now, mind. Oh, the treatment of Alan Turing and Frank Whittle…

          It’s a recurrent theme. Politics is primarily about bullshit. You can’t bullshit reality.

          • Bobm


            Most of us believe in Truth, Justice and Peace.

            Do you have a broader, more detailed, philosophy?

          • Clark

            Dunno, really; it’s complicated. My voyage of personal discovery probably started with Persig’s Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. I know that there is far more to anything than I will ever be capable of knowing. I always try to remember my own limitations, and that I cannot be fully aware of my own biases; consequently, I try to give thorough consideration to arguments that do not appeal to me. The test of everything is reality, and not my beliefs and opinions. My model of the world is merely that – just a model, and the map is not the territory.

            Thanks for asking. I’m off to Meditation Group, so bye for now 🙂

  • Paul Barbara

    @ Clark March 29, 2017 at 18:39
    ‘Truth, Justice , Peace.’

    Noble sentiments indeed. But the first casualty of war is said to be the truth, and obviously justice and peace automatically fall by the wayside, to be trampled by jackboots, drowned in blood and blown to smithereens by artillery, cruise missiles, bombs and drones.
    I cannot think of a war or armed intervention involving Britain in the 20th or 21st centuries which was not precipitated by lies, and by Banksters and Big Business making bundles.
    You seem so focused on attacking ‘conspiracy theories’; why give the governments, who initiate these illegal, totally immoral wars of aggression and regime change, the benefit of the doubt? Why not the people who question the governments’ narratives and patent lies? Poor old OBL (RIP), a man who I believe genuinely thought he was fighting the ‘good fight’ against the Soviets, and whose bravery and dedication cannot reasonably be contested, believed the CIA were genuinely interested in the cause of getting the Soviets out (they were, but their main reason was to ‘bleed’ the Soviet Union, having created the Mujaheddin BEFORE the Soviets invaded, and sent them in to topple the government (another case of ‘regime change’, with the intent to bring in the Soviets, where they would be immersed in a Vietnam-style conflict – I very much doubt OBL knew that part of the plot)).
    He was also honest, and mere days after 9/11 gave information to al-Jazeera and two Pakistani newspapers that he had had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11. But Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell got on the phones to the MSM and told them not to report OBL’s denial, in case it had a coded message to his agents. I’m sure the same was true across the Western world; anyhow, it wasn’t reported.
    Again, poor old OBL; he unwittingly furthered the massive carnage of Muslim countries that has occurred since 9/11, by falling for the CIA’s dirty schemes. He could have been living the high-life with his millions, but chose instead to fight for his brother Muslims, and then to get blamed by the CIA for 9/11.

1 105 106 107