The 9/11 Post 4003

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 *

4,003 thoughts on “The 9/11 Post

1 96 97 98
  • Clark

    Let’s apply que bono to demolition theories.

    Glenn, are you listening?

    Suspects according to demolition theories so far:

    Public regulatory bodies NIST and FEMA.
    University academics; physicists, civil engineers.
    FDNY firefighters.
    Medical staff at Jennings’ hospital.
    Noam Chomsky.
    Craig Murray.
    Julian Assange.
    Edward Snowden.
    And counting…

    List of benefactors, anyone? Alex Jones seems to have done OK.

    Oh just ignore me. I’m obviously an agent for the authoritarian right.

      • Clark

        Silverstein comes out of it rather well; leaseholder and owner of buildings that were indestructible without controlled demolition. I’m sure he’d rather be accused of demolitions that never happened than provably poor safety standards throughout his property empire.

    • Bill

      Beneficiaries? The owners. The buildings were insured in such a way that the insurance companies had to pay double the appraised value.

      That value was inflated … considerably and much of the buildings was empty.

      The buildings were going to have to either be torn down or the interior beams were going to have to undergo asbestos remediation. Previous tenants knew this, and so did prospective tenants. The die was cast on that one … my wife is a former inspector for the Department of Environmental Protection for the City of New York and it was common knowledge that the WTC towers were in deep trouble on that score.

      Consider also that a great deal of gold was stored in the basement of the buildings … but was shipped out in the weeks preceding the demolition.

      Consider also that the building had been shut down over the weekend several times … supposedly to wire it for faster networking. You don’t need detonation cord if you have CAT 5 going where you need it to.

      Nope … not buying it. And the dirtier the current election gets, the less inclined I am to believe that the demolition did not at least have the approval of US Government administrators even if the actual demolition was contracted out to others, such as Mossad, who would have none of the inhibitions Craig references. That dog won’t hunt.

      • Clark

        Bill, FYI detonation cord is made of explosive; it blows up. Cat 5 is computer networking cable; it doesn’t blow up.

        OK, theoretically, detonators could be triggered via networking cable, but what a nightmare wiring job, and the chances of accidentally detonation would be ridiculously high. Very embarrassing to blow up a Tower or two before the ‘planes turned up. I think you haven’t really thought this through or looked anything up.

        • Clark

          Hang on; networking cable can’t handle sufficient current to trigger many detonators. The detonators would therefore need their own batteries. The chances of premature detonation would be even higher than I first thought.

          You just made this up, didn’t you?

  • Vronsky

    I thought this was for discussion of 9/11. Seems to be a vanity blog for Clark. You’ve killed it dead, Clark, well done. I hope the fee was respectable, a gentleman needs something to keep the draught from the door.

    • Clark

      Vronsky, I nearly met you once, when I was driving Craig about supporting the pro-independence campaign. Sad; that looks like a failed cause now, too. I’d have moved to escape the right-wing foreigner-hating morass that Essex has become.

      I remember you once posted something like “Newton will win this argument”, but Chandler’s action-reaction argument is utter bunk; buildings are not homogeneous like blancmange so you can’t draw one big upward vector in the middle to represent resistive force. It’s a real shame about Chandler. He’s done the best independent video measurement and analysis I’ve seen anywhere. He’s provided strong sound evidence disproving demolition, but he dubs his voice over everything, propagandising for explosives.

      Ah well, you think I’m an agent. I hope you’re at least sincere because in fact I’m suicidal; I had therapy this afternoon. Do you want me to scan and post my doctor’s letters? I could probably find my therapist’s professional affiliation if that would help. An apology from you wouldn’t go amiss.

      No, Vronsky. I care about physics and I hate to see it continually mangled by the lying Truthers. Sorry, but that’s what they do; they lie and propagandise. Shame about you, too; there’s not even any hope in Scotland.

        • Clark

          And yes I’m trying to discuss 9/11. Demolition didn’t happen*, so discussing demolition is NOT discussing 9/11.

          * I retain some reservation about Building 7, but not very much.

          • Clark

            Oh and I’ll tell you something else; it was me that repeatedly re-opened comments on this thread. The same thing happened again and again – everyone circle-jerked the “certainty” of demolition and the absolute evil of everyone US until they got bored and then comments closed automatically. You need to imagine I’m an agent or there’s no enemy to hate.

          • Clark

            Vronsky, what about the Glasgow bin-wagon tragedy? Reckon it was a set-up? How about asking Suhayl; he works at the hospital?

          • Paul Barbara

            Perhaps that could be because it looks like one of the ‘computer-based’ re-enactions produced by NIST to try to befuddle the masses.
            We have all seen the totally smoke and dust enshrouded collapses of the Twin Towers, but no one has seen this crazy sh*t. But what do you expect from Metabunk?

          • Clark

            The buckling can be seen in Tuther videos, too. I saw it last night on Paul Barbara’s link to a Truther vid called (ironically) “Denying the Obvious”. At one minute:


            The shot itself is also confirmed from another camera angle, but I haven’t found that again yet.

            “Grasping at straws” yet no complaint against hologram aircraft, buried nukes, energy beams from orbit, or even supposedly pre-emptive children’s cartoons… You name it; anything goes, except actual evidence.

          • John Goss

            You’re wrong again about the use of nano-thermite.The white smoke and the huge clouds as from the lift-off of a rocket proves it. Initially the smoke was black. But the molten metal immediately before the collapse, in both twin towers, shows the fires had nothing to do with jet fuel.

            All credit to you for your perseverence in the face of science. People used to think the world was flat. Then the truthers came along.

          • Clark

            John Goss, there is no “second link” in your comment of October 14, 18:54. I’ve found no alternative explanation for the inward bowing, which you were denying occurred at all a couple of days ago.

            The video you linked to was not “put together by engineers and demolition experts”. I don’t know who made it but it was posted to YouTube by user PreserveOurFreedoms who’s apparently very keen on some Bible Basher and NWO theorist called David Barton.

            Regarding the link you did post, do you have to post that sort of thing? It takes forever to analyse and describe. It’s a New World Order mash-up dubbed with sinister music made from many shots we’ve seen before, including one of the earliest alternative 9/11 videos, The Great Conspiracy by Barrie Zwicker. It featured Mike Ruppert, who wouldn’t touch demolition theories with a bargepole.

            The bit you were probably interested in is the heavily and selectively edited interview with ex Controlled Demolition Incorporated employee Tom Sullivan. If you’d bothered to find the original you’d have discovered that Sullivan is talking about Building 7 exclusively, though the vid you linked dishonestly edits images in to suggest that he’s referring to the Twin Towers. Note for the gullible: inward buckling and implosion are not the same thing. “Implosion” is a term used to denote demolition.

            John Goss, do you actually approve of deception? You really waste my time with this sort of rubbish. Make some effort yourself and trace the clips back to their original sources. Here’s Sullivan talking live to an audience:


            But beware. A&E 9/11 “Truth” were indulging in a bit of deception, as usual, and it involves thermite, as usual:


            The original correction isn’t on the link provided to A&E but can be found at

            NOW, having got through that mess, SHOW me evidence for a molten substance issuing from WTC 1, or retract your claim.

            WHAT a WASTE of TIME. They just lie, lie, lie.

          • Clark

            John Goss, October 14, 19:51

            “You’re wrong again about the use of nano-thermite.The white smoke and the huge clouds as from the lift-off of a rocket proves it”

            Most rockets produce white clouds. A Saturn 5 first stage burned highly refined kerosene (similar to jet fuel) with liquid oxygen, producing mainly water vapour which condensed rapidly to white steam and colourless carbon dioxide. The Ariane 5 main engine burns liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen, so the main engine’s plume is just steam, but it also has two solid rocket boosters (SRBs) fuelled by a mix of ammonium perchlorate, aluminium and polybutadiene. The Shuttle’s SRBs used polybutadiene acrylonitrile copolymer.

            I’m pretty sure this proves nothing about nanothermite.

            Love this line: “People used to think the world was flat. Then the truthers came along”

    • Clark

      Yes there were loads of explosions; fires make many common objects explode. But the demolition theory is that “all support had to be removed simultaneously to cause such rapid collapse”, so random explosions throughout the day are not evidence for demolition. How many times must this be repeated before you get it? I’m accused of being an accessory to murder because I “comment too much”, but you just wheel out the same old crap over and over again, requiring the same refutation again and again.

      Go on, show me ONE controlled demolition initiated by randomly placed explosions randomly timed over the course of between one and seven hours. Put up or shut up.

      • Clark

        I wrote “fires makes many common objects explode”. Maybe there were also also planted bombs, but that would still not be evidence for “controlled demolition”.

        • Clark

          Do you actually care about truth at all? Or are you going to keep repeating this because you regard it as helpful propaganda? That’s just like bent police framing their chosen suspect.

          • Paul Barbara

            @ Clark
            October 14, 2016 at 13:39
            The buckling can be seen in Tuther videos, too. I saw it last night on Paul Barbara’s link to a Truther vid called (ironically) “Denying the Obvious”. At one minute:


            The shot itself is also confirmed from another camera angle, but I haven’t found that again yet.

            “Grasping at straws” yet no complaint against hologram aircraft, buried nukes, energy beams from orbit, or even supposedly pre-emptive children’s cartoons… You name it; anything goes, except actual evidence.’

            Just like I suspected, it’s a NIST ‘explanatory mock-up’. Do you really think that ‘plane’ in the video is real?????
            Madness alone is no longer enough – Kempe and Clark ‘take the cake’ – enjoy!
            Watch the following, to see how ‘special effects’ are manufactured:

          • Clark

            Paul Barbara, no it isn’t a video effect. It’s not the aircraft shot in your link “Denying the Obvious”; it’s the shot after. It’s an excerpt from 16 minutes and 50 seconds into this video by Ben Riesman:


            Why did you even bother disagreeing? The footage is confirmed from other videos.

  • lysias

    I just finished reading “The Plot to Kill King”, about the assassination of Martin Luther King, by William Pepper, who was a friend of King’s and the lawyer representing the King family in their 1999 civil suit that resulted in a jury ruling unanimously that King was killed by a conspiracy involving local, state, and federal government agencies. Pepper has held this view for many years, but the new book contains new evidence.

    Pepper concludes his new book with an epilogue on disinformation contained in books and media promoting the false official account that King was killed by James Earl Ray. He points out that virtually no one in the mainstream media dares to dispute the official accounts of such sensitive matters as the King assassination and 9/11, as to do so would endanger their careers and livelihoods.

    • Trowbridge H. Ford

      I concluded in my article on Manchurian Candidates in Issue Eight in a 2002 issue of Eye Spy magazine that Ray was one who was being moved around by CIA Executive Action Director William King Harvey, and primed to kill King when he saw him in the sights of the gun he had bought for Harvey aka Harvey Steinmeyer (pp.53-5) which certainly disputes official accounts of the assassination.

      • lysias

        Read Pepper’s book, and you will be convinced that Ray, like Oswald, didn’t shoot anybody. Like Oswald, he was just a patsy set up by the government to take the fall for the crime.

        • Trowbridge H. Ford

          I have not only read Pepper’s book, but have a copy of it with my complaints about it in it.

          It is largely rubbish which makes no mention of my article about Manchurian Candidates, including not only Ray, but also Sirhan Sirhan, and Arthur Bremer.

          Of course, there is no mention that I can find of this, especially William King Harvey’s role in it.

          Harvey’s people tried a quick hypnosis on double agent LHO in the hope of making him the communists’ killer of JFK, but it didn’t take because he wouldn’t agree do it, forcing them to make him the patsy of it after they accidentally, it seems, shot Governor Connally who suspected he had been double crossed, forcing them to get Jack Ruby to disposes of him so the whole plot could be covered up/

          There isn’t even any mention of Jim Garrison being on the trail of Hsrvey when he effectively stopped it.

          I won’t waste anymore time on Pepper’s rubbish who didn’t even use the best help from spook Gerald Posner’s crap which would help explain why and how Harvey’s people got Ray to do theor dirty work.

  • Paul Barbara

    Regarding ‘Whistleblowers’, this may be of interest to some:

    ‘ Monday 17th of October 2016 between 9am and 12 noon

    This special vigil outside the Ecuadorian Embassy in London is very important as this is the day the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange will be finally questioned enabling some progress regarding the outstanding Swedish case. Please visit website for the latest developments in this case.

    Particularly, we remember the last time the Swedish Prosecutor was to proceed with questioning the meeting was cancelled at the last minute we also remember that JA’s legal team welcomed the progress of the investigation and has actively pursued it for years.

    It is also the case that the United Nations Working Group of Arbitrary Detention has examined the case from the very start of Julian Assange’s detention in 2010 and through the years’ long procrastination and inactivity by Sweden and have found that both the UK and Sweden are arbitrarily detaining him, that they should release and compensate him.

    Since neither countries have complied with their International obligations, both UK and Sweden will be under scrutiny on the subject during their UN Universal Periodic Review for Human Rights. Already UK has been chastised.

    Quote “Assange’s case “raises serious concerns regarding the UK’s ability to guarantee equal treatment and the right to a fair trial, protection against inhuman and degrading treatment and arbitrary deprivation of liberty, the right to privacy and family life and the right to health. In addition, Mr Assange’s case is emblematic of the trajectory of human rights protection in the UK, with the UK’s apparent efforts to cut off access to human rights appeal mechanisms, and demonstrates the importance of access to UN complaint mechanisms for UK citizens and residents.” Unquote

    If you are unable to attend, but still wish to show your support, please share with us a statement of support special for the occasion which we can read out during the event.

    Julian Assange Defence Committee [email protected]

  • John Goss

    Apologies if this has already been posted.

    And this.

    What surprises me about those supporting the official view is that before 9/11 there had never been anything like it. Nor afterwards. Yet on one day three buildings, not one, not two, but three, buildings collapsed. Skyscrapers had been hit by planes before. But planes never brought down any steel-structured building.

    At the beginning of the second video link there is a quote from Bill Cooper that there was going to be an attack on America and Osama Bin Laden would be blamed but it would not be Osama Bin Laden. The NWO would be responsible. This further confirms what Nathan Rockefeller told Aaron Russo about there goiing to be an event and there would be videos of people searching in the caves of Afghanistan but the event would be orchestrated by US.

    People going on believing the official account need to start asking questions about coincidence. Three buildings. One day. At least with Julian Assange’s so-called ‘rapes’ they happened within a week, even though there had been no allegations before or after. Two separate fabricated events, 9/11 and the accusations by Sofia Wilen and Anna Ardin, are too much weighted in coincidence and not the laws of probability. Wake up world.

    • Kempe

      ” before 9/11 there had never been anything like it ”

      Exactly. Please provide list of steel framed skyscrapers hit by large aircraft.

      • John Goss

        I know the one that hit the Empire State Building in 1945 was only a medium-sized bomber but it did not weaken that edifice, although it did a lot of damage, and it still stands today. Perhaps you should make a list of structural-steel buildings which have pancaked in on themselves without having had any structures weakened by detonations.

        I applaud your efforts Kempe. It is a bit of an obsession with you. It is as though when anything questioning the official version is posted, Kempe is there, to shoot it down on behalf of the white hats.

        • Clark

          Here are seven storeys of a steel-framed building collapsing due to fire. Finding this is called “doing one’s own research”:

          The Empire State was an older design, with columns roughly equally spaced throughout the structure. In WTC 1, 2, and 7 the columns had been concentrated into the core and the perimeter, to give wide, open-plan spaces in between, but making the buildings more vulnerable. Add the corruption of organised crime and you get collapses. Sorry if that’s a bit technical for some.

          I expect we’ll see more collapses of steel-frames over the next few years, of buildings of poorer quality built between the construction era of the Twin Towers, and the early 2000s when the lessons of 9/11 were learned.

          • John Goss

            Clarke the seven storey fire destruction was a partial collapse. It confirms what truthers have been alleging all along. If a few stories above fall (the video runs for more than a minute) it does not have a significant impact on the floors below. This video shows what work the demolition team had to do after the fire.


            On the other hand the twin towers collapsed in about 12 seconds (give or take). Work it out for yourself. You don’t even need to be an engineer.

          • John Goss

            This is even more compelling about the findings of your research Clarke.


            It looks like the fire went pretty well through all the building because there is only the skeletal structural-iron surrounds remaining in parts (apart from the room with the red chair – not in this video) other than the part that collapsed.

          • Node

            John Goss. These statistics support your point

            WTC 1 : 115 floors in approximately 15 seconds. Total symmetrical collapse.
            WTC 2 : 115 floors in approximately 15 seconds. Total symmetrical collapse.
            WTC 7 : 47 floors in under 7 seconds. Total symmetrical collapse.
            Delft Architecture Faculty : 7 floors in approximately 10 seconds. Asymmetric collapse of part of one wing.

          • Clark

            Node, not symmetrical. Don’t bullshit. Somewhat symmetrical. The asymmetry of the WTC 2 collapse, that the top section tipped as it started to fall, is used in Truther arguments; you can’t have it both ways. You can see the asymmetry in the debris plume that this tipping resulted in. The rubble piles were not symmetrical. The ejections from the corners can be seen to progress at different rates. The remnants of the cores were not symmetrical. And the collapse times are roughly consistent with Bažant and Zhou.

            Stop propagating false memes. Deception cannot counter deception.

          • Node

            John Goss. These statistics support your point

            WTC 1 : 115 floors in approximately 15 seconds. Total symmetrical collapse.
            WTC 2 : 115 floors in approximately 15 seconds. Almost total symmetrical collapse.
            WTC 7 : 47 floors in under 7 seconds. Total symmetrical collapse.
            Delft Architecture Faculty : 7 floors in approximately 10 seconds. Asymmetric collapse of part of one wing.

          • Clark

            And Node, Building 7 took over fifteen seconds to collapse. Stop stretching facts in your favour. Give me some hope; stop bullshitting.

          • Clark

            It is true that we could build a big see-saw with an intricate and fully functional clock on one side, and over-balance it with a greater weight of random parts from assorted clocks on the other, but doing so would tell us almost nothing about how clocks function.

  • Clark

    John Goss and Paul Barbara, I apologise. You’re not lying, are you? You actually have to care about truth and falsity to be able to lie. You’re actually just bullshitting. You couldn’t care less about about accuracy or facts. So long as a statement points in the direction you wish to lead your audience, you just seize upon it and transmit it on. Equally, if you find a statement that contradicts your preferred direction, you either ignore it or call it disinformation or propaganda.

    I actually do care about facts, so while you two indulge in your hobby, I get frustrated. Look, if there were actually any evidence indicating pre-rigged demolition of the Twin Towers, I’d be taking it very, very seriously, as I do Building 7’s 2.25 seconds of acceleration at approximately g. But there just isn’t any. I follow your links and watch a load of your videos (always videos – you don’t like documents or scientific papers, do you?), but there’s just nothing, zilch, nada. You just can’t understand what I’m on about, can you? You think these videos you post actually mean something. Internal consistency, correct references to sources, full instead of edited quotes – the value of these is lost on you, because all you care about is which way it points.

    All of which suggests that I’m wasting my time. I may as well cast pearls before swine.

    • John Goss

      While you’re feeling low Clarke I don’t really want to enter into a debate with you. I trust the engineers. They don’t even agree with one another about the method. Steven Jones, Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds present different theories. But what they all know, like me, is that 9/11 needs investigating to find out the truth of what really happened. The science is in their videos which are of course presented in a lay fashion so that people like me and you can understand them.

      Hope you are soon feeling better.

      • Clark

        John, thanks for your kind words, but it’s not going to improve. I don’t like human nature, and I don’t see any hope. I should have stuck with physics. There would be some hope for me if I were in the scientific community but I’m too late for that.

        I’m now convinced that advanced communication developed in humans primarily as a means of manipulation. The whole structure of human society argues for that. I cannot see any hope for a species in which success of individuals and groups is determined primarily by how well they can deceive and dominate.

        • John Goss

          While I agree with you largely although everybody is not out to deceive. Robots and artificial intelligence will be the new slaves of the rich and super-rich unless there is a change in thinking. Fortunately most of the rich are lazy and not capable of maintaining artificial intelligence let alone creating it. Their interest is in making money and the playthings money can buy. They are shallow.

          We all have our own ideas. We support them, sometimes even with facile arguments, and perhaps sometimes too we are too rigid in our support. What I do know, which nobody can argue about, is that Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Ukraine and Yemen were much more stabe countries before 9/11 than they are today. 9/11 gave the nasty Bush administration a raison d’être to start its unholy wars. I believe it was specifically planned and people like Aaron Russo and Wesley Clark show that.

          • Clark

            John, I’d like to agree; God knows I could do with some hope, but it’s not “us versus them”, not even “rich versus poor”:

            “If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?”

            ― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago

            Yes, the countries you name have all been destabilised. Libya and Syria were both destabilised partly by Western exploitation of Saudi-inspired religious extremists, who now run amok in Iraq and Libya. Yemen is being attacked because it threatens Saudi power, so the so-called West is supporting Saudi Arabia with massive supplies of weapons.

            This decades-old competition between the USA and Russia, formerly the USSR. Through US and British influence upon the monarchies of the Middle East, the extremists have been sent again and again against those countries that aligned with the USSR and modelled their political systems upon the one-party state.

            But on 9/11, the policy backfired. Chomsky is spot on. In no way did the US hawks and neocons want the embarrassment of 9/11. There is no way they’d have laid a false trail to implicate their most exploited “allies”. If the policy were widely understood by the electorate, the backlash would stop the policy within two elections.

            So the pro-war powers had to thwart understanding. Their tool is propaganda, but to be successful they needed more then one strategy. For the masses, amplification of islamophobia sufficed; Anon1 falls into this category. But how could they handle those who suspect propaganda and manipulation? They turned to the trusty technique of divide and conquer. Multiple contradictory theories were amplified through right-wing US talk radio and the like, the same outlets that promote anti-UN depopulation theories, anti-science theories to undermine climate science, anti-environmental theories, and the weakening of democratic controls over corporate power.

            And it has worked and continues to work; this thread proves it. I can write all of the above, but around half here suspect that I’m some sort of pro-war agent. Look at Chomsky, smeared on this very thread. Look at Craig Murray, blacklisted. Look at Nafeez Ahmed, sacked from The Guardian for seeing too well and describing too clearly:


          • Clark

            The real battle isn’t between “us and them”. It’s between truth and falsity.

            Subjugating oneself to reality requires humility. It requires acceptance of being mistaken. I used to accept demolition but I was mistaken. I had to accept the facts and admit that I had been wrong, and I had to do so in the knowledge that others would treat me the way I once treated Angrysoba and Larry from St Louis.

          • John Goss

            I tried to reach out an olive branch because I know you are unwell but there is no need to be insulting.

            Your trouble is Clark you believe you are right to the exclusion of all others. I have tolerated this nonsense and tried to make allowances. You need to go back through the comments and see how you have taken over this thread and how opinions of those who do not share your (and Kempe’s) ludicrous views is not worth consideration.

            I’m sorry, it reminds me of how much of a stickler you were over the combined harvesters, totally inflexible. Your last insult was the last straw.

          • Clark

            I said I was sorry, but there you are. Should I be “flexible” over whether light travels in straight lines? It’s your own problem, John. When facts get in the way of the narrative you wish to promote, you get “flexible” with the facts. You chop and change, demonstrating no integrity, so that one day you’ll insist that bowing didn’t occur, then the next you’ll say that bowing did occur but it’s consistent with demolition. You’ll raise the matter of a court case which you says proves deception by the BBC, then claim that it’s a red herring and that those challenging you are diverting the thread. You’ll claim molten matter falling from WTC 1, but just quietly ignore the lack of evidence when challenged.

            How am I supposed to decide which of your contradictory assertions to agree or disagree with? It can’t be done; sorry, not my fault.

          • Clark

            Further, your offer of an “olive branch” and “mak[ing] allowances” suggests that you think these matters can be determined by how aggressively arguments can be expressed, rather than by accuracy of facts and consistency of logic. I remind you that we are debating demolition, a matter of physical reality, not opposing political opinions.

            It is true that sufficient aggression may drive me or others from the thread, but that will not change the facts of what occurred. To think otherwise is to invoke magic – that reality, even events in the past, can be altered by spells, because spells are merely sequences of words.

            I am sorry that you found my remark insulting.

          • John Goss

            There is no accuracy in your ‘facts’. They start from the premise that the twin-towers could fall as fast as they did when there was resistance below. You start off with a basic denial of science (Newton’s laws) and expect people to take you seriously in your support for the lying American war-mongering machine.

            I’m out of here.

          • Clark

            (sigh) I do not deny Newton’s laws; Chandler misapplied them, “proving” that even the collapse of a house of cards can’t accelerate.

            I OPPOSE ALL WARMONGERING, US or otherwise. Please apologise for this slur.

            NB. America is a continent; the US is a relatively minor part of it. I deny US exceptionalism even in my use of language.

            Glenn, sorry for my rat-tat-tat; obviously I should permit myself to be denigrated.

          • Clark

            John, really; I wouldn’t lie. Chandler’s downward acceleration / action-reaction argument is wrong. It’s like saying that you can’t fall out of a tree because you can’t accelerate downwards through the trunk – well, the second bit is true so far as it goes, but it doesn’t stop you falling out of a tree.

  • Clark

    The thing that really saps my energy is constantly challenging little false claims, but I’ve seen how it works. Any little distortion that seems to support demolition becomes part of the mythology. It’s like the New Agers and their cancer “cures”. One person on a grape juice diet undergoes spontaneous remission, and suddenly it’s proof that the whole of oncology is a conspiracy to kill people with radiotherapy and mustard gas. All the ones who die were obviously killed by the conspiracy.

  • Clark

    You’ll never find real objections to the various mainstream narratives while you’re constantly finding false ones to amplify, and even if you do they’ll be unrecognisable under your self-generated mountain of bullshit.

  • Clark

    Deception, Justice, Peace.

    No, that can’t work.

    Counter-narrative, Justice, Peace.

    Hmmm, could work, if we’re really lucky with the counter-narrative.

    Truth, Justice, Peace.

    Truth?!? No way; that would involve admitting our own faults! It would mean admitting imperfection, weakness! Let’s go back to Plan B; we’re feeling lucky, aren’t we? We don’t want any misery-guts who don’t feel lucky.

    • RobG

      Clark, you seem to be in a very dark place at the moment; I say that not to disparage anything you’ve said here, because you’ve made some very excellent points that seriously need to be considered in the 9/11 debate (mostly about balance).

      Whatever us fucked-up humans do, the sun will always rise in the morning.

      For me it’s always the best time of day, because it is the affirmation of life.

      Life is not a given, it’s a gift.

      • Clark

        RobG, I posted at 10:02 below ‘blind’, without reading the thread. Thank you for that kindness.

        “Life is not a spectacle or a feast. It’s a predicament”.

        I can’t remember who wrote that, but for some reason I wrote it up on my living-room wall.

      • Clark

        Last night I watched videos of Danny Jowenko (and before Paul Barbara starts up, no it seems most unlikely that Jowenko was elaborately murdered). I really relate to his final remark about Building 7; he makes a quizzical face and says, “I can’t explain it”.

  • Clark

    I think I know why Trutherism angers me so. It’s very similar to a religious cult.

    And I think I know why it obsesses me so. In various ways, it’s particularly like Jehovah’s Witnessism, which ruined, and continues to ruin my life.

    And I think that’s why Glenn upsets me the most of all here. He attacks me for something that already has an outpost in my soul, that I can’t be rid of because it was indoctrinated into me from before the emergence of my consciousness.

    Glenn, I need your help. If rationality does not prevail I will go under.

  • Node

    I have had to stop discussing politics with two of my close relations, relatives A and B. They get angry and make abusive personal comments about me which they would never make under other circumstances.

    Relative A has been like that ever since we became adults. He believes the world is largely as it is portrayed in the TV news, and if I challenge that view he interprets it as a sign of my lying twisted nature that I see such traits in politicians he trusts. He would never say that (or believe it) outside the context of a political argument. However every discussion about ‘the way of the world’ ends up with him making bitter remarks about me. The more I offer supporting evidence for my views, the angrier he gets.

    Relative B was, until a few years ago, much more relaxed during such discussions, in fact he sought out my views on matters which puzzled him. I had long made plain my belief that 9/11 was an inside job to which he maintained an open mind. Then one day he emailed me saying he had been watching an Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth video and he was now convinced that 9/11 WAS an inside job. A family meeting was scheduled for about a month later when all three of us would be together and I looked forward to seeing how relative A would react to finding out that his was now the minority view regarding 9/11.

    I was to be disappointed! In the intervening period, Relative B had watched the BBC programme “9/11 Ten Years On” and decided he’d been hoodwinked by AE911Truth. He’d lost his open mind and was vehemently opposed to any sceptical views. Now, not only does he get angry when I challenge 9/11 orthodoxy, he gets angry when I challenge any political orthodoxy. He too now dismisses my views on the grounds of deep and unpleasant faults in my character. I can date this sradical personality change to the exact day! ….. The day he watched the BBC’s “9/11 Ten Years On.”

    How do I interpret this? I believe that in the few days when relative B believed that 9/11 was an inside job, he couldn’t avoid the huge and horrible implications that come with it – wholesale media complicity, deception and corruption all the way to the top – in short that the world was not the cosy place it had seemed. When the BBC programme offered him an escape from this dystopian nightmare he grasped for it like a drowning man. He could believe that everything is all right again ….. at the price of locking away and never examining again anything which contradicts the comforting illusion.

    A mental trick must be adopted to accommodate the dilemma posed by those inconvenient 9/11 theories : they must be the product of deliberate deception by those who champion them ….. but it is disturbingly difficult to dismiss them on rational grounds …. so they must be such despicable ideas that they are abhorrent to a decent person … therefore it is OK to dismiss them in anger without examining them …. it is logical to direct my anger at these Truthers because they have warped minds and are trying to deceive me.

    I enjoy debate but not bitter argument. They cannot see that if my views are extreme to them, then their views must be equally extreme to me. They get angry, I don’t. They are intolerant of my views whereas I understand theirs. Why my views are provocative to them but their views are not provocative to me is not a question they ask themselves. And so now when they make what seems to them everyday observations about the news, I bite my tongue and thus continue to enjoy the company of two otherwise fine people.

    • Clark

      Node, one of my favourite sites is Media Lens – not the message board; the main site by the Two Davids. Their articles are not quite as good as they used to be; they’re getting more angry, but the results of their meditative practice are still evident in their adherence to clear, contextualised quotes and facts, and avoidance of exaggeration.

      My suggestion is that you examine the source material. Ask relative B what matters A&E deceived him about, but refrain from arguing and/or “correcting” him. Note them down. Find those sections on the A&E site – be thorough; the arguments probably appear on multiple pages, some more exaggerated than others. Then watch the BBC’s Ten Years On, noting the arguments presented that contradict the points in your notes. Then return to the A&E site, find the contradictory material, and identify those passages that, in this context, could be taken as exaggerations, distortions or deceptions.

      There is more I could write but it is more personal. The one point I will make is that, from your comments, you seem no longer to regard demolition as a theory but as a proven fact. On that matter, you seem to have left behind the stage of consideration, and have since taken to advocating demolition, of presenting only those facts that tend to support it and neglecting those facts that contradict it. This will make it difficult for you to recognise “those passages that, in this context, could be taken as exaggerations, distortions or deceptions”.

      Humans suffer a troublesome tendency to polarise; our little brains have trouble considering both of two contradictory hypotheses at once, let alone more, let alone shades of grey and uncertainty. When someone contradicts our beliefs, we have a tendency to escalate, to present a harder-hitting argument. Meanwhile, the other party is suffering exactly the same tendency but in the opposite direction. Those whose views are supported by a smaller proportion of the involved population tend to compensate by resorting to more extreme arguments and fighting harder, in the unconscious hope that when peace is restored the border will have shifted favourably. But this process has no connection to the validity of facts; it’s merely a legacy, a side effect of being descended of the (on average) more triumphant in the evolutionary process.

      • Node

        You have missed the point of my post. It was : Why do they get angry when I express my honestly-held opinion that the world as portrayed by the media is a fiction?

        An example: If I said I was going to vote SNP because I believe Scotland would be better as an independent nation, they might argue for UK unity but they wouldn’t get angry with me. But if I said I was going to vote SNP because I believe Westminster is controlled by shadowy bankers, they WOULD get angry with me. Never mind whether I’m right or not, why are they prepared to tolerate one of those opinions and not the other?

        And not just these two relatives, I have friends who would react in just the same way. I am an opinionated kind of guy and so I have many opportunities to study this phenomenon!

        • Clark

          Node, hang on a minute; you wrote:

          “Relative B was, until a few years ago, much more relaxed during such discussions…”

          Something changed. Since it changed for Relative B, it might have changed earlier for Relative A, in circumstances you’re unaware of, or maybe A is just not like B.

          I think you’ve attributed B’s change to the BBC, but you wrote that Relative B used to be relaxed when you expressed your views, then became more convinced after reading the A&E site, and then started getting angry with you after the BBC programme. I’d say the change was probably to do with both sources; B had been exposed to the BBC all his life. Little ape brains, not adapted to coping with contradiction, ambiguity and the undiscoverable.

          What I find difficult is that it’s lonely being between the polarities, where I tend to get shot by both sides. Things got quite bad for me when Exexpat likened me to “Cameron with blood on his hands”. Hell, I wrote a very strong letter to my MP before the Syria airstrikes vote. I’ve been hair-trigger since that remark and I’m not likely to calm down with Glenn and Vronsky needling me. I think the sources of anger may be quite diverse, and most things are more complex than we tend to think.

          • Clark

            And also, people don’t like being deceived. One source raises no suspicion of deception. Two contradictory sources may imply deception, and responsibility then falls on the reader to work out where. Most likely there is error, and probably deception from both sources. This annoys me all the time. I point out something wrong in a claim, and various then accuse me of “supporting the official story”, as if it’s a binary choice.

            Corporate media distortion is the most comfortable sort because it works mainly by omission. Those who make strong claims are more likely to be perceived as deceptive.

    • Kempe

      ” A mental trick must be adopted to accommodate the dilemma posed by those inconvenient 9/11 theories : they must be the product of deliberate deception by those who champion them ….. but it is disturbingly difficult to dismiss them on rational grounds ”

      Well no it isn’t and no mental trickery or pseudo-psychology is needed because there is no dilemma once you realise how absurd the inconvenient theories are. Clearly the BBC documentary opened Relative B’s eyes to this.

      • Node

        But why do they get angry? If my opinions about 9/11 are so ridiculous, why not pity me, or laugh at me, or just agree to disagree?

        If we’re watching a football match and disagree about whether a player was offside, they don’t accuse me of deliberate deception or impugn my character. Yet they will do just that if I question whether the media portray the world honestly. I’ve suggested an explanation (the mental trick you quoted). If you don’t accept my explanation, what’s yours?

        I’m asking you to accept that I’m describing a real situation without exaggeration. I’m sure many other ‘truthers’ have experienced similar behaviour.

        • Clark

          Compare the sources. Relative B gets angry with you. A&E do use deceptive techniques at times, as do the BBC. If the BBC programme has exposed bias or deception in A&E’s argument, relative B may be angry with you for not noticing that and warning him.

          This is certainly what gets me mad at times. All media has an agenda, so when we discuss personally it is up to each of us to screen our sources and pre-warn those we’re conversing with. It’s about respect. I feel disrespected when John Goss presents impossible arguments about hologram aircraft, or buried nukes as promoted by the best friend of an arms dealer. He should have checked. Neglecting to do so is like offering a gift of rotten fruit, or a pen that leaks ink on your fingers.

          P.S. I’ll tell you the more personal bits if you ask.

          • Node

            The point I am making is not about me, you, my relatives or any particular belief or opinion. I gave examples to illustrate my point (not very well, apparently) but the general question is:

            Why do some people get irrationally angry when their worldview* is challenged?

            * worldview : noun; the overall perspective from which one sees and interprets the world. (The Free Dictionary)

          • Node

            … and I’ll convert my suggested explanation into the general case too.

            Because when confronted with evidence that their worldview is unrealistic these people are unable to cope with the flood of ramifications. They cope by denying the evidence using emotion rather than logic.

          • Clark

            Node, I can’t answer you because (1) there are assumptions inherent in the questions you’re asking and (2) I’d have to point out some personal matters.

            You could compare and contrast my own predicament, of repeatedly being accused of being a shill working for the assumed 9/11 conspiracy.

        • Maxter

          David Cameron at the UN “9/11 was a jewish plot and 7/7 was a staged event” and Cameron was serious about dealing with the people that promoted these things. No ridicule pity or laughing involved with his comments either! Why would the UK Inc have their top puppet mouth off about these ridiculous laughable theories?

          • Clark

            Maxter, here’s Cameron’s speech:


            It’s long-winded waffle – convoluted rationalisation – by a hamstrung politician. He’s trying to appear opposed to “terrorism”, but he’s committed to US/neocon policies including the overthrow of Syria’s existing government, so he’s also trying to justify US/UK etc. arming, training and assistance to “selected” religious extremists. He’s also promoting justifications for increased government control and surveillance over media, communications and public speaking.

            The problem is always the same whether we look at individuals, companies and corporations, media, or governments. Everyone recognises that there are severe problems, but illusory superiority blinds them (us) to their (our) own contribution to them:


      • Node

        Yes and yes.

        And the more subtle point I am leading towards is that in my personal experience*, it is the defenders of the official narrative who get angry and abusive, not the ‘truthers.’ I get angry at the people behind these murderous schemes, and the enabling media, but never at ordinary people who don’t happen to share my beliefs. I understand that for whatever reason – lack of interest, too busy, personality type, etc – they see the world differently. There but for the grace of the flying spaghetti monster go I.

        I therefore consider the behaviour I have been describing as a significant clue regards where the truth lies. If cognitive dissonance is “the state of having inconsistent thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes, especially as relating to behavioural decisions and attitude change” then it is instructive to note in which individuals the symptoms are manifest.

        *When I say “personal experience” I am referring to the real world outside the internet.

        • Clark

          Node wrote:

          “it is the defenders of the official narrative who get angry and abusive, not the ‘truthers”

          (cough) so it isn’t abusive to dismiss those who challenge 9/11 “Truth” as conspirators in mass murder? That happens all the time – eg. Vronsky to me at the top of this page. I find it remarkably offensive.

          Note – false dichotomy – I do not defend some official narrative.

          • Clark

            1) Test your assertion with reductio ad absurdum. You can prove any absurd proposition that gains some minority foothold to be true with this reasoning.

            2) Note that cognitive dissonance proves nothing about truth and falsity. Cognitive dissonance would occur just as much to someone with accurate beliefs who became overwhelmed by false opinion.

          • Clark

            Example for (1) above – I used to go knocking on doors, preaching with my mum as a Jehovah’s Witless. We were always very polite, but some people got angry. We knew we had The Truth. The cognitive dissonance displayed proves that Jehovah’s Witlessism is True!

          • Node

            so it isn’t abusive to dismiss those who challenge 9/11 “Truth” as conspirators …
            I specifically excluded internet debate from my statement.

            Clark, it is impossible to disentangle your response to my question from all the personal comment you make, and I don’t want to get side-tracked.

          • Clark

            Node, I just remembered. Away from this thread in private e-mails (if I remember correctly) I’ve had a demolition theorist get very angry at me because I argued for the possibility of collapse of the Twin Towers due to fire and damage. Cognitive dissonance can cut in various directions.

    • Clark

      And how should Truthers come to terms with 9/11 misinformation? Has Chandler withdrawn or corrected his paper Downward Acceleration of WTC 1? People are still using that argument. John Goss used it just up this page, and accused me of supporting US warmongering because I reject it.

      It’s rich depicting denial of provably false claims as some sort of psychological problem.

      • Clark

        There is NO evidence for explosive demolition of the Twin Towers. None. I have studied the evidence thoroughly and I say that with confidence. There is massive evidence that the Twin Towers collapsed due to severe damage and fire. I have not avoided the evidence; I have examined it thoroughly, coming at it from both yea and nay approaches. Here’s the clincher; inward bowing initiating collapse:

        There is some evidence that may indicate explosive demolition of Building 7, but there is far more indicating otherwise.

  • Clark

    *** HELP REQUESTED ***

    I’m looking for help with this video:
    “Inside 7 World Trade Center Moments Before Collapse”

    I’d like to find its source, and work out what time it was taken from visual and/or audio clues rather than relying on the title. It’s a six minute excerpt from something; I think it might be interesting to find more of it.

    Any comments appreciated.

  • Paul Brockley

    I enjoy your posts Mr Murray,

    but on 9/11 I would offer two points that need an answer,

    First the evidence of molten metal. Cannot be caused by burning jet fuel.

    Second and even more telling I believe, what would be a reasonable explanation of the fall of tower 7 being announced by the BBC 30mins BEFORE it happened.

    • Clark

      Regarding molten metal: I found a video of Leslie Robertson speaking at a lecture. He described “little rivulets of molten steel” – I think that’s what he said, but do check. Maybe he said molten iron. I wanted to hear his opinion because I’d expect him to know molten steel from other metals. He didn’t say there were large quantities. There is that clip of the firefighters, one saying “like a foundry”, but he doesn’t actually say how big the pools of metal were, and I certainly couldn’t blame him if he was being a bit dramatic.

      Various other commonly used metals melt at lower temperatures. Of course there was lots of aluminium cladding on the outside of the Towers, and aluminium aircraft structure within. The buildings had much copper wiring, and large transformers and motors with copper windings. There were also UPS rooms – Uninterruptible Power Supplies for server computers, with racks and racks of batteries – lead-acid accumulators very similar to car batteries. Office fires could certainly melt lead, and lead-acid batteries can melt themselves if shorted out. Here’s an investigation which also corrected NIST and some official documents:

      Molten copper and/or aluminium are other possibilities. I’m not sure if office fires would melt these, but short-circuits of the mains supply certainly could, as could short-circuits in the battery circuitry of UPS installations, even if the mains electricity had failed. Both mains and batteries could also melt steel.

      As to the BBC’s early announcement, I still find it spooky and I retain some suspicion that Building 7 was deliberately brought down. But it must be noted that the collapses of all three buildings were anticipated. Deformation of each Tower was noticed before collapse. Fire chiefs tried to order firefighters to evacuate, but inadequacy of their radios and failure of the Twin Towers public address systems prevented the orders reaching personnel. Building 7 was evacuated and an exclusion zone implemented hours before collapse. Deformation of Building 7 was being measured and monitored. These points can be confirmed from surviving firefighters’ testimony.

      • Clark

        I once accidentally shorted a 38Ah motorcycle battery with a spanner. It had been on charge for a while and the spark musk have ignited the hydrogen-oxygen mix. I didn’t immediately know what had happened. My thought process went something like this:

        Why is my face wet? Why are my ears ringing? Why is the right-hand side of the battery a jagged mess with the plates showing? Why is it raining plastic fragments? “What?” Why didn’t I hear myself speak just then?… Oh, the battery must have exploded and that must be acid on my face… Quick, wash!

        The spanner had a quarter-inch notch in it; just missing. It was about half an hour before I could hear normally again.

        • Clark

          I’ve just caught myself at it. I didn’t “accidentally” short the battery. I must have rationalised my own memory…

          I’d been abusing the battery by using the bike while the alternator was dead by charging the battery each evening. This had worn the battery out and it was no longer holding much charge. I thought that a high forward current might help restore it, so I deliberately shorted it with a 19mm spanner.

          The clue that I’d rationalised my own memory record came from my image of the notched spanner. It was the 17mm/19mm open-ended from the bike’s own tool kit, but the battery terminals were only 10mm; why would I have been using such a big spanner? Well, because it was long enough to reach across the terminals. Now I remember rightly I’d expected a largish current which is why I used a spanner. I remember making a firm contact onto the left terminal, then swiftly and firmly closing the gap onto the right terminal. Then followed the surreal experience above…

          I lived to be older and wiser. Washing quickly saved my face from the acid. I was lucky no shrapnel hit my eyes. And now, thirty years later, I’ve admitted foolishness to myself, amended my memory, and confirmed the process of rationalisation.

    • Kempe

      Aluminium melts at around 660C so the cladding could’ve been melted by the normal fires. I know Truthers react by claiming molten aluminium isn’t orange in colour and whilst that might be true at temperatures just above it’s melting point as it get’s hotter the colour changes. At 1,000C it is orange.

      The BBC announced the collpase of WTC 7 in error shortly after they were told it had been abandoned. That’s a reasonable explanation. What isn’t reasonable is the idea that the BBC were in on the conspiracy and that whoever planned it provided them with a script in advance. That’s not really very credible is it? That a foreign broadcaster would be trusted with advance knowledge of the most secret project since ULTRA.

      Cognitve dissonance is just a pseudo-scientific and patronising escape route for Truthers. If faced with a non-Truther who won’t be taken in by a conspiracy obviously they’re just a “sheeple” suffering from “cognitive dissonance” rather than someone able to distinguish facts from fantasy.

      • Clark

        Kempe, check my links above at 20:43; it’s a good investigation. The molten metal was probably lead.

        Cognitive dissonance is very real; I suffered years of it escaping Jehovah’s Witlessism. But cognitive dissonance says nothing about which world view is more accurate. Truther’s misapply it, same as Chandler mangles Newton’s laws.

        • Kempe

          High levels of lead were detected in the dust from the collapse so that’s a very good possibility. Either way the stream of whatever isn’t proof it was molten steel or the presence of thermite.

          My apologies over the cognative dissonance thing. If you’re presented with two credible sets of data it’s possibility but not when one is totally lacking in reason or evidence.

          • Clark

            Oh I was indoctrinated from the age of four, I think; it was too early in life to remember clearly. Two hours on Sundays and Thursdays, an hour on Tuesdays, plus an hour of bible study and Watchtower study with Mum on a Friday, plus some hours “out on the doors” with Mum every non-school week. Dad wasn’t “in The Truth” so I was convinced he’d be killed at Armageddon around 1975 plus or minus a decade or so (they refused to pin down the date) when I’d have been twelve. Then at school: no participation in religious education, not allowed into the religious bits of assembly, no carol singing, no participation in Christmas or Easter, no birthday celebrations (mine or others), not even cards; it’s very isolating. I didn’t want to take biology but it would have been frowned upon because I’d have been taught evolution. All under threat of death at Armageddon if I’d “left The Truth”.

            It isn’t devoid of evidence; they just pick supportive facts such as the intricacy of eyes and cells, and bits of the Bible that seem to be backed up by recent findings such as David’s “you (God) protected me in the womb” as a reference to the placental barrier and rabbits “chewing the cud” as a reference to cecotrophy, and either never mention contradictory evidence, or find some way of explaining it away, and they repeat these over and over again. It’s a lot like 9/11 demolition theories in these respects – the speed and symmetry of the collapses, “no building ever before”, the 2.25 seconds of free-fall, the same YouTube clips over and over. Anyone contradicting the doctrine is influenced by or working for The Devil, just like you and me must be agents of the conspiracy, and anything unexplained is attributed to God’s omnipotence, just as the 9/11 conspiracy calls on “secret military technology” like mini-nukes that don’t produce I131 or hologram planes that make great holes in buildings.

            I didn’t leave because I stopped believing – I was too scared for that. What happened is that I found that non-Witlesses weren’t evil, so I rebelled against “God” and decided that the more moral choice was to die with the non-believers at Armageddon.

            But it did help set me up to cope with cognitive dissonance. Node. Lysias. Sorry I get cross sometimes 🙂

          • Clark

            Kempe, no apology necessary. It’s the ones accusing me of being feeble-minded who should apologise.

            Once I was “out of The Truth” I realised I’d been in a bubble of confirmation. Then, of course, the question occurred to me if I wasn’t just in a bigger bubble. No, I don’t believe any “official story”. I’m not going to start believing things just because they get repeated a lot, in either mainstream or alternative media.

          • Clark

            And this is why I respect Osama bin Laden and the Saudi-indoctrinated extremists. I’d have fought to resist a blood transfusion, and they are quite capable of flying themselves to their own deaths into buildings. The ages are about right, too – it dogged me right through my twenties. Thankfully I was never forced to witness live beheading, flogging or hand amputations. Life can be made cheap by applying effective techniques.

          • Clark

            See my Gravatar? I wrote the program that plotted that. Don’t tell me my science is no good, and don’t tell me it’s all my vanity. Science, reason and adherence to fact are the only salvation I have left.

  • Paul Barbara

    @ Clark October 18, 2016 at 03:15
    ‘*** HELP REQUESTED ***
    I’m looking for help with this video:
    “Inside 7 World Trade Center Moments Before Collapse”
    I’d like to find its source, and work out what time it was taken from visual and/or audio clues rather than relying on the title. It’s a six minute excerpt from something; I think it might be interesting to find more of it.
    Any comments appreciated.’

    Very interesting. I was reading down the comments, and thought I’d check it out. Sure enough, I had never seen it. I got the name of the Secret Service guy, Bennette, and the department he said he was in, OST (Office of Safe Transportation – of nuclear material, that is!!! – but some further digging came up with an article where he had been charged with stealing 5 Security Service cars, so while it is true he worked with the Security Service, he may have been telling a porky with the OST business):
    Came up with some interesting stuff, but not as good as your later find of the 29-minute clip (which I didn’t get to till after I’d found this:
    ‘9/11 WTC ‘Nuclear Demolition Man’ from Nuclear OST Dep-T with Construction Helmet in WTC-7 Lobby!’: (gives an exact time frame in the ‘notes’ below video);
    ‘Prosecutors Say Rescuer Stole Cars Recovered At Ground Zero’:

    But that siren certainly does sound strange – I seem to have a recollection of a similar sound from a Chemical/Biological siren from some Gulf War video clips.
    I wonder what the two guys were ‘rescuing’ on the gurney?

      • Paul Barbara

        Thanks for that clarification. When I looked up OST all I could find was ‘Office of Secure Transportation’.
        ‘Operations Support Technician’ makes much more sense, as in the article (not video) he is said to be ‘head of the agency’s motor pool at 7 World Trade Center’.

      • Paul Barbara

        Anyone watching that video of WTC7 should also be aware the EPA knoowingly lied and said ‘the air is safe to breathe’:
        ‘World Trade Center Rescue Workers Believed EPA, Ended Up Sick’:
        And the head of the EPA finally, 15 years late, apologises for being wrong, but still doesn’t admit she lied at the behest of the Bush Administration: ‘Former EPA head admits she was wrong to tell New Yorkers post-9/11 air was safe’:

        Many clean-up workers were told NOT to wear protective masks, so as to reassure New Yorkers the air was fine.

        • Paul Barbara

          Further to my above comment: ‘Thousands Have Cancer, Hundreds Dead from Massive Chemical Attack’:

          ‘….This isn’t just some far-flung theory. As Scientific American wrote on the tenth anniversary of the attacks, as also noted by Rudowski in his video, the then administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Christie Whitman told the public on September 13, 2001, “EPA is greatly relieved to have learned that there appears to be no significant levels of asbestos dust in the air in New York City.” Adding, “We will continue to monitor closely.”

          Five days later, she perpetuated the lie by reiterating firmly, “I am glad to assure the people of New York and Washington, D.C., that the air is safe to breath [sic].”

          But it wasn’t.

          Asbestos that had been used in the construction of the North Tower of the World Trade Center ballooned out in a putrid, toxic cloud containing untold quantities of other toxins and particulates — and has since caused illness, respiratory ailments, and fatalities in an unknown number of people present that day.

          In fact, the Inspector General of Whitman’s own agency concluded two years after she’d assured people’s safety, that the EPA “did not have sufficient data and analyses to make such a blanket statement.” Of the myriad samples the EPA did collect in the weeks following the attack, 25 percent contained levels above the 1 percent “safe” threshold indicative of “significant risk.”

          “Competing considerations, such as national security concerns and the desire to reopen Wall Street, also played a role in the EPA’s air quality statements,” the Inspector General noted in the report in 2003.

          That deception in the interest of, essentially, the banking interests and the government quite possibly directly influenced the decisions of volunteers — firefighters, police, health workers, local residents, concerned civilians, and members of the military — to work at or near Ground Zero in the days and weeks following. Worse, as Rudowski explained, volunteers were told protective masks and gear were unnecessary — and should be removed…….’

          • Clark

            Paul Barbara, absolutely, and it’s despicable At every turn, the people and workers have been lied to by the organisations that are supposed to serve and protect them. The EPA said the air was safe. Legislators forced NIST to say the buildings were safe. Intelligence said there was no way they could have known and the military said there was no way it could have been prevented. The government endorsed and enabled all of the above and the news media duly transmitted and amplified it. An information environment entirely dominated by deception and manipulation, all to keep the money flowing, and we haven’t even mentioned foreign policy.

            No wonder conspiracy theories abound. This is what Kempe needs to acknowledge.

  • Paul Barbara

    @ Clark
    ‘…Legislators forced NIST to say the buildings were safe….’

    Pity you felt you had to slip that in, or we could have agreed. There is absolutely no evidence the buildings weren’t safe, never mind of Legislators forcing NIST to say they were.

    • Clark

      Read NCSTAR 1. The change in law is referred to – May 2002, before the NIST investigation started. That was quick, wasn’t it? Just like the Patriot Act. The disclaimers on the first pages refer to the terms applied to the investigations, and the non-disclosure agreements NIST had to submit to before they could get plans, records and data about the buildings – ie. they were prevented from publishing the deficiencies. Kempe tried to link a report in professional journal Fire Engineering about the fire resistant materials (“fire-proofing”) that were flaking off, but it’s behind a paywall so he summarised a few comments later:

      NCSTAR 1 records substandard thickness of fireproofing on samples from the wreckage, such as was salvaged before the authorities whisked it away. The NIST Building 7 report doesn’t mention the components that were meant to stop girders being forced off their seats by expansion. It doesn’t say they were omitted, but it sure doesn’t say they were present, either. But the new law gagged NIST from making any accusations, as recorded in NCSTAR 1. Funny, that, eh?

      The families of emergency responders who were killed in the collapses were offered out-of-court compensation settlements but had to submit to gagging orders to receive payment; that looks like a cover-up to me. And read a few pages from this search term:

      OK, reports I’ve looked at don’t mention substandard building components or construction, but every other type of corruption is there – what are those publications meant to do? Tear some buildings apart to prove it?

      There’s loads of evidence that the buildings were unsafe, and even more that it was covered up as much as possible. I bet NIST are well pissed off.

      • Clark

        I bet NIST were well pissed off, even before a load of Truther’s turned up accusing them of being party to mass-murder by demolition. Under the terms of the new 2002 law, they couldn’t even defend themselves from the Truthers’ accusations by pointing out the buildings’ deficiencies.

        Yet NCSTAR 1 records as many of the deficiencies as NIST could publish. The language is carefully neutral but the information is there. Meanwhile, the demolition theorists are free to use the most inflammatory language they can think of. It must be as frustrating as hell.

        • Clark

          Paul, to be fair to you I would guess there are some well-connected big-wigs in (or above) NIST who were keeping the researching engineers in line, too. Or maybe they were threatened via funding, lack of promotion, loss of jobs or pensions etc. Banks handle the pensions, don’t they? Variable rates, by any chance? I haven’t looked into it so I’m only guessing, but we know how The System generally works. I’ll bet most of the suppression happened at the wording and publication stages, ie. bosses rather than researchers.

        • Paul Barbara

          Here is a nice article, where you can display errors on the part of the Truthers, if you can find them.
          They, for their part, have demonstrated the errors by Bazant, NIST etc.
          I’m sure you have seen this stuff before, so you should be able to home in on the Truth Brigade’s ‘errors’, if you can find them, quite quickly.
          For simplicity’s sake, keep your arguments to the information of both sides as presented in this article:

          On the physics of high-rise building collapses:

          There is no need to rush; there is plenty of material there to keep you out of mischief for aquite some time.

          • Clark

            I was working through the original Bažant and Zhou. The tipping equation (kinetic energy equals potential energy) seemed to correctly represent the physical system. Some of the relationships are more engineering than physics; I’ll need to look those up. I’ll go through the various papers – originals and replies – in order.

            What I can say immediately is that some relationships will involve the strengths of structural components. This is a similar situation to the components that should have prevented girders from being pushed off their seats by expansion in Building 7. NIST didn’t mention those components and A&E Truth criticised NIST for that, but corruption could well have led to those parts never being installed in the first place. If NIST were leant on or legally gagged to prevent them from blaming anyone, leaving those components out of their model could be the clearest message they could get away with sending. Someone needs to read through the 2002 act, and the one it replaced.

            The authorities had the site cleared without checking whether critical components were missing. OK, the quick clearance could have been to cover up evidence of explosives, but I think more likely to cover up missing or substandard parts. Consequently, some structural details are now beyond being discovered. Someone should be prosecuted for interference with the crime scene, but I bet there’s some sort of exception or amnesty from on high. That’s another legal paper trail.

            I’ll report on Bažant and Zhou etc as I progress.

          • Clark

            PS. I’ll work through the original paper and post what I make of it before going through the objections. That way, if I come up with objections they’ll be my own, and can be compared with the ones already published.

            If there’s anyone else here who can check my work (when I post it), I’d be grateful. I often guestimate about physical systems, but this is more in-depth than anything I’ve done for decades. I’ve more of an electronics background, but ultimately it’s all the same stuff; I should get there eventually!

          • John Goss

            Paul Barbara, thank you for that. But I am sorry to say that Clark finds a way to ignore basic physics. We have all posted similar credible articles by a variety of engineers and physicists. The encapsulating sentence from the link you posted is this:

            “Researchers have since provided calculations showing that a natural collapse over one storey would not only decelerate, but would actually arrest after one or two stories of fall (see Fig. 4) [2, 10].”

            Although that is Newtonian physics (and a law that has never been challenged) Clark is immovable. Even if you hit him with an irresistible force he would not budge. Instead he proposes you are quoting from someone disreputable because the establishment loons like those in the Qwilliam Foundation, much criticised by Craig, say so. Or he presents you with a NIST-enhanced graphic of how flimsy the floors are.

            For me I take on the mantle of ‘Truther’ in the same way the Society of Friends took on the mantle of “Quaker” because although others meant it as a source of ridicule Friends would wear the epithet with pride because of what they believed to be the truth.

            There is a very, very, very, almost non-existent possibility that fires could have brought down three buildings of structural steel for the first and only time known in history. As well as fire burning upwards it would need to be burning in all the floors (the ground floors too) for what happened to have any possibility of happening.

            Anyway I, you, and the ever-growing number of scientists and engineers are all wrong. Clark will find a way of proving it, at least to his own satisfaction.

          • Clark

            John Goss, I DO NOT IGNORE PHYSICS. Regarding the Twin Towers, the arguments I have seen presented are wrong.

            Chandler’s “downward acceleration” argument misrepresents the physical system, treating the floor assemblies as vertically strong as the upright columns. That isn’t even true of a single girder. Consider. Place a girder horizontally, supported at each end. How much downward force applied in the middle would it take to make it bend? Stand an identical girder upright. How much force can it withstand applied straight down? You could even try this yourself with, say, a metre of copper pipe.

            The “missing jolt” argument is also wrong. We see a jolt in vérinage demolition because the top part of the building remains parallel to the lower part as it falls; the two floors that impact each other do so almost simultaneously across their entire areas. The top sections of the Twin Towers started to tip as they began to fall; a parallel impact could not occur, so no jolt would be expected.

            You insist that the Twin Towers were built to an incredibly high standard. You also insist that NIST and the vast majority of structural engineers are lying about the collapses. But both the construction and the analysis were performed by structural engineers. Before the collapses you see paragons of virtue; after the collapses you see apologists for murder. I suspect it is you displaying double standards rather than them.

  • Nikko

    Apologies for butting in at such late stage. It seems to me that video evidence presented by Clark on 17/10 at 22.56 as the “clincher” for gravity collapse actually shows the opposite. The video is of WTC2 looking at the north and east façades; the north façade being to the right. Before the initiation of collapse no damage or fires can be seen on either of the facades below the impact line.

    This still picture is taken from a similar direction but from a much lower view point. It shows the upper section of the building rotated by about 15% but the structure underneath still standing but with ejecting gases along both facades some 20 or 30 m below the rotation point. The video showed no damage or fires in this area prior to the start of the collapse.

    So what is causing the powerful ejection of the gases? It can’t be air as some have suggested because the building below the rotation line has not started collapsing yet.

    Whether the upper section rotation started spontaneously or not is not that important – what is important that the rotation was not completed because the supporting structure underneath disappeared. Gravity had to have a helping hand.

    The Bazant paper from 2010 I believe has a section on the velocity of the ejecting gases – completely flawed because it did not take compressibility of air into account

    • Trowbridge H. Ford

      I swear that if I see another post on how the buildings allegedly collapsed rather why they did, and what happened to all their occupants and the passengers on the planes, I shall scream so loud that you can possibly hear me no matter where you are.

      • John Goss

        I know you contribute to this Trowbridge and it is another credible (one of the most credible I have read) pieces on 9/11. Because it comes from at least one insider who has survived it gives more credibility. I have always believed the twin towers were brought down from the bottom up this makes me rethink some of it. Of course there needed to be nuclear detonations at the base.

        Anyway Veterans Today has done sterling work on why nobody in their right mind would want to join the military, so I was half-way there before. Unless contradicted this recent article may be key to two major events. The first is why Dr. David Kelly was assassinated. The second is what happened to the nuclear weapons when South Africa was freed from apartheid. David Cameron knows the answer to the latter. The truth will out.

        • Maxter

          Thanks for the link John! Excellent information in addition to the stuff I am already aware of. The world is indeed run by absolute psychpathic scum.

          • John Goss

            You’re welcome Maxter. It could be interesting if families who lost relatives sue Saudi Arabia because this type of evidence would have to be scrutinised by lawyers for the families.

        • Clark

          The Veterans Today article claims:

          “The following information is from the US Department of Energy Preliminary Report on the Events of September 11, 2001”

          Please link this document. Without it, the article has no credible foundation.

          • John Goss

            That’s like saying Craig is not credible because the parliamentary select committee won’t let him keep even the documents he wrote himself.

            Jeff Smith, who provided the information is under a gagging order. The article says so. It says this too. “We also know that a grand jury seated in Houston actively silences all involved in Able Danger, that being the very few who survived the series of “accidents” and other mishaps. All are under threat of imprisonment for violating the Patriot Act if information revealing US government complicity in 9/11 is revealed.” Smith released photographs of the surveillance of the Israelis, the crater created by the nuclear event and lots of documents (many redacted). Here is an earlier document by him.


            One telling fact that it was nuclear is how ground zero continued burning at high temperatures and melting steel, rock, glass, everything for more than three months after the event. Another is the lack of bodies, office furniture, cabinets, everything was obliterated. Another is the pulverisation of concrete into tiny particles of dust. There is so much compelling evidence I find it difficult to reason why an intelligent man like you Clark cannot see it.

            However Clark if you are going to continually rubbish everything that does not concur with the official view it is not worth people posting, and you are no different from NIST, which was given a conclusion that the twin towers were brought down by fire and it must make the facts fit that conclusion. Everything else was ignored

    • Clark

      Nikko, sorry, how do you explain the buckling?

      I strongly suspect that you’re being dishonest, trying to mislead people, though it’s possible that you have merely been misled. I’ll expound if needs be.

      • Clark

        Nikko, in case you are genuinely confused or have yourself been misled…

        The photograph you linked was taken some short time after the top began to fall. Falling debris was already displacing large volumes of air from beneath it. Yes, air is compressible, but as soon as the outer perimeter was breached the air will have started rushing out.

        The reason I suspected dishonesty is that you linked to a still image rather than a video. Many videos clearly show that all ejections, of both fire (initially) and dust/debris, began after the collapses initiated. The ejections were clearly effects of collapse.

        There is no evidence that the collapses were initiated by explosives. However, there is powerful evidence against. There is the buckling. There is the absence of explosive sounds or shock waves (as would be seen in the smoke) at the onset of movement. There is the extreme improbability of pre-placed explosive charges surviving the aircraft impacts and subsequent fires.

      • Nikko

        Your video shows molten metal pouring away from exactly the point where the supporting column separated and thereafter the whole upper section of the building started to rotate. However, what happened next – actually what did not happen next – is far more revealing because the rotation did not get a chance to continue about its fulcrum because the supporting structure underneath disappeared.

        You say that the ejections were clearly the effects of the collapse. There is no “clearly” about it.
        Your mind seems to be made up but you did say you were going to do some physics. Given that you think it was air that was gushing out, do not forget to take it into consideration. The polytropic expansion coefficient of air is 1.3.

        • Clark

          The ejections were clearly effect rather than (evidence of) cause because they came after collapse initiation rather than before.

          It’s not a matter of my mind being made up; please don’t insult me. Show me convincing evidence and I will change my mind. That is called sanity. And of course if you keep me running around I won’t have time to work on the tipping equations, and you will falsely proclaim your “victory” to the gallery, as all your ilk repeatedly do.

          Buckling? Buckling, buckling, BUCKLING??? Sorry, WHOSE mind is made up?

          • Nikko

            I did not mean to insult you but saying that your mind seemed to be made up is hardly an insult after you suspecting that I was dishonest by posting a still rather than a video.

            If your mind is open to consider also the possibility that the ejections were the cause of the collapse of the supporting structure have a look at this video of known demolitions, which shows similar ejections occurring shortly after the start of the collapse at intervals of 4 or 5 floors below the initial fault line.

            Look at the building on the left at 0.22 (initial explosion/start of collapse) followed by a second explosion at 0.31 five stories down. Or from the other side at 1.28 and 1.33 respectively.

            Do you see a similarity?

          • Clark

            First building (0:00 to 0:11) – massive ejections well before any part of the building starts to fall.

            Second building (0:11 to 0:47 – fuzzy sections ignored) – small ejections seen on nearest face well before any part of the building starts to fall.

            Third building (0:47 to 1:16) – explosion at back left before any fall; ejections on right apparently simultaneous with right side of building starting to fall, but the origin of these ejections appears to be some way further back, so ejections had probably proceeded for some time before extending into view.

            Fourth building (1:16 to 1:38) – small ejections seen well before building starts to fall; larger, air-driven ejections follow later. Window frames blown outwards.

            Fifth building (1:38 to 2:05) – top wave of bright flashes of explosives have already been and gone by the time the top of building starts to fall.

            2:05 to 2:30 – apparently a repeat of fifth building footage.

            Sixth building (2:30 to end) – dust from explosions already visible when video sequence starts; some time before any of building starts to fall.

            Well done. You have provided strong evidence that in explosive demolitions, ejections from explosives are seen before any of the building begins to fall. By contrast, in the case of each of the Twin Towers, ejections are not seen before some part of the building is seen to fall.

            Additionally, the collapses of the Twin Towers initiated with inward buckling, most clearly seen, and videoed, in the case of WTC 2:


            The evidence indicates that the collapses of the Twin Towers initiated due to failure under load, without explosives.

          • Clark

            John Goss, thank you for yet another insult; you could reflect upon your feelings that motivate such remarks. I think I’ve demonstrated that I watched the videos more closely, and with a more open mind, than you did – you saw only what you were directed to see. But you can change that at any time 😉

            Watch Danny Jowenko, Dutch demolition expert, talking about the Twin Towers:


            I don’t agree with him about “bolts springing out”. My guess is that very dense, hard objects like lift winches, transformers or UPS racks smashed down inside, breaking relatively small holes through the floors, falling more rapidly than the general building debris, setting off cascades of rubble which followed them and eventually led to ejections ahead of the main collapse front, maybe when abruptly arrested by the heavier mechanical floors. Or maybe falling lift carriages or counterweights, in the cores. But whatever, those ejections that get ahead don’t initiate new collapse fronts further down.

            Here he is being shown Building 7’s collapse, apparently for the first time, and giving it some serious thought. Some Truthers think he was eventually assassinated for this, but I very much doubt it; he died years after giving the interviews. When he’s shown a plan of the building he says that the design would make rigging it somewhat quicker. The plans don’t show the truss assembly between floors 5 and 7 and the even smaller number of columns which supported it, which would have made demolition set-up quicker still. But when he learns that Building 7 was on fire, he shrugs and says that he can’t explain it. Neither can I:


            John, I get the impression that even if you became convinced that the Twin Towers did collapse through damage and fire, you’d continue to insist on demolition because you think there’s some value in propagating that belief, whether it be true or false. But you can’t overcome deception with more deception. Remember; this is a chain of dependencies:

            Truth, Justice, Peace.

        • John Goss

          Clark, even if I were to accept Danny Jowenko’s theory, which I don’t, it hardly matters. Most important is the Newtonian physics and my own observation of the thickness and design of structural steel girders, and what could or could not have happened to them. After posting what you called your research – the TU building

          It is insulting of you, not a structural engineer, to imply the designers of the twin towers took shortcuts. Nevertheless the basic physics work in the TU Delft University fire, ironically a post of your ‘research’ which shows exactly the opposite of your argument that fire can bring down buildings with a framework of structural steel. They cannot. What was probably seen in the video you posted was the collapse of the concrete. The next morning the strutural steel was still there.

          You cannot vanish structural steel in the way it vanished in the collapse of the twin towers. Something very powerful and greedy consumed those girders.

          • Clark

            John, I posted evidence for the deficiencies of the Twin Towers, here:


            All the physics shows is that the towers were weaker than everyone was led to believe, but you know that capitalist systems always make exaggerated claims. Newton’s laws are not broken by the collapses.

            And it is far less insulting of me to say that the New York Mob, organised crime, cut corners, than for you to say that all of NIST and the entire structural engineering and physics academic communities (apart from the tiny minority of A&E Truth), including those in Russia, are complicit in covering up mass murder by demolition.

  • Clark

    Trowbridge H. Ford, October 20, 21:24: please post your story, with supporting links wherever possible.

    Most here are obsessed by the notion of demolition of the Twin Towers, for which I have found no credible evidence, and extensive, highly credible evidence to the contrary. It is the nature of obsession to be impervious to rationality, so the prevailing “consensus” on this thread, though characterised by unquestioning acceptance of each others’ contradictions, is unlikely to change. I may post a little physics eventually, but spurious objections can be raised ad infinitum. Probably the only recourse is to ignore the perpetual clamour and proceed as if wasn’t happening.

    • John Goss

      As far as I can see there is only one ‘obsessed’ on here. You have a clear view as to what happened and never detract from it, apart from the occasional questioning of Building 7. But then you conclude that it is not really credible to question it.

      Others of us know the official version is wrong. That is why so many different hypotheses are posited. Not just because we have no clear united view but because we question the official story and would like to see an investigation. That is what all research is about: questioning what came before, going back to basics, re-examining, testing new theories, looking at other people’s research, discarding anything questionable, reading the latest papers, drawing conclusions. It does not make any item of research necessarily right. If we thought we were exclusively right to the exclusion of all others we would be dogmatists.

      • Clark

        John, the aircraft impacts and collapse sequences of the Twin Towers are about the only parts of the events which were openly visible, seen by thousands, and videoed and photographed by hundreds. It is perfectly clear what happened; there is no need to speculate. The Twin Towers were substantially severed, and further degraded by fire at those same regions. Unsurprisingly, that is where they failed, causing the upper sections to come crashing down onto the structure beneath.

        You call this “the official story” but it is much more than that. It was the directly witnessed by countless ordinary people.

        You ask me to ignore the evidence of my own eyes in favour of “physics” I can see to be rubbish. You ask me to abandon my sanity. And if I do not comply you accuse me of supporting Quilliam! You showed me the car crash in this video:

        Well I put it to you that those cars were supremely strong, made almost entirely of steel, and mere impact could never have smashed them in like that. It must have been rigged in advance, with many hugely powerful springs stretched between the front and numerous anchorage points throughout the cars, held from contracting by glass rods which were shattered using remotely detonated explosives just before the moment of impact, to make it look like the crash did the damage. Where else could the energy have come from? We all know that cars are made of steel and much stronger than that. The damage is too symmetrical. One car rotated much more than the other, and BOTH front ends went down, violating Newton’s third law and the law of conservation of momentum – there must have been stronger springs hidden in one wing than the other. No other cars have sustained exactly those patterns of damage ever before, and it’s a HUGE coincidence that both cars’ bonnets went UP, and NEITHER of them burst into flames!!! And if you disagree, then it can only be because you support fascists, and want perpetual war with Russia! Go on, prove otherwise!

  • EdTuo

    i worked at the WTC and loved it. sad to say my survival is because my mom got terminal cancer and i quit to be with her.
    i am pretty sure the kamikaze run of those two planes happened mostly as we’ve been told. we tried to starve terrorism financially, and doubtless they hit our financial hub for the same reason.
    may i say i loved going to work there every morning w thousands of well dressed people, and i miss the buildings, too. the buzz from all the wiring was palpable, the floors and walls hummed w excitement.
    where i differ is w the plane that crashed afterward in the PA. i suspect our military shot it down.

    • Clark

      EdTuo, welcome; sorry about your mum, but glad you escaped.

      I suspect the hijackers were within the US system, under the secret 1945 Quincey agreement with Saudi Arabia. FDR made an agreement with Ibn Saud that for a secure supply of oil, the US would protect the oil fields, build an airbase in Saudi Arabia, and provide military assistance and training to Saudi Arabia. They also agreed that the US would never oppose Wahhabism, the Saudi version of Islam which includes flogging, stoning, amputations, beheading, and religious police walking the streets. It’s this brutal, supposedly religious system that raises extremists who are indoctrinated enough to perform suicide missions.

      Since then, the US/Saudi compact has sent such extremists against governments seen as socialist in the Middle East, just as the CIA trained, armed and funded the Mujahideen to fight the USSR out of Afghanistan. But it’s a religious motivation, and those that “rebel” and slip the control of the Saudi power structure are the ones that get labelled “terrorists”.

      I suspect that Saudi fighters were receiving their military training in the US (look up Springman’s revelations) and these were at least some of the hijackers, the so-called “terrorists”:

      “J. Michael Springmann was the former head of the American visa bureau in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, in the Reagan and former Bush administrations, from September 1987 through March 1989.[1] While stationed in Saudi Arabia, Springmann was “ordered by high level State Dept officials to issue visas to unqualified applicants”. Springmann states that these applicants were terrorist recruits of Osama Bin Laden, who were being sent to the United States in order to obtain training from the C.I.A”

      It’s these same Saudi-indoctrinated extremists that your government and mine are currently sending against Syria, because Syria is more aligned to Russia than to the West, with a Russian naval base and no US or UK airbases. They now also run amok across Libya.

      As to the crash in PA, Susan Lindauer was imprisoned on a US military base after 9/11 because she knew and said too much. She says that the pilot who shot down that flight was imprisoned there too.

      The man she said was her handler certainly does seem to be CIA, though of course he “neither confirms nor denies” that. She also talks about demolition, but that wasn’t in her personal experience. She says a State Department official told her that – I suspect that the State Department are deliberately muddying the water, because it was the State Department ordering that visas be given to the Saudis that turned against the US.

1 96 97 98