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
  • 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.