The 9/11 Post 3264


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 *

3,264 thoughts on “The 9/11 Post

1 92 93 94
  • Vronsky

    The physicist Richard Feynman tells a story in one of his books (sorry, forget which) about measurement of a physical quantity. He has a graph of the historical values of this quantity, a curve descending gradually over decades, arriving eventually at what is now accepted as the ‘correct value’, insofar as modern physics entertains such quaint notions.

    His point? The first investigator to make the measurement got it badly wrong – but he was highly reputable. Subsequent investigators always found the correct answer, but were so shocked by its divergence from the accepted value that they edited and re-edited their analyses to arrive at a roughly similar figure. Hence over time we see that continuous, elegant curve towards the truth, not a sharp step-change from error to correction.

    I mention this because discussion of 9/11 seems even more cursed with prior expectation, but without hope of a gradual progression to consensus. When I eavesdrop on 9/11 conversations, I categorise the protagonists:

    (a) The government of the United States of America would not murder three thousand of its own citizens in order to provide an excuse for war in the Middle East. Suggestions that 9/11 was an ‘inside job’ are therefore absurd.

    (b) Everything, however awful, is true.

    (c) (b) is wrong, but I’m not sure about (a)….

    It’s all a bit Bayesian- prior assumptions should not occlude evidence. But in real life they always do.

    • Paul Barbara

      (a) is hilarious, given the documented experiments of US civilians and military over the years, many involving the deaths of the hapless unwitting ‘humanguine pigs’, as well as engineered wars such as WWI and WWII (Lusitania; Pearl Harbour); Vietnam (Gulf of Tonkin LIE’); iraq (Saddam ‘induced’ to invade Kuwait) and so on.

      But (a) is not really hilarious as in ‘funny’, because of the horrendous loss of lives on all sides.

      • Kempe

        Classic exercise in Truther logic. “I believe in conspiracy theory A because I also believe in theories B, C, D, etc.”

        It all collapses at free fall speed into it’s own footprint when you remember that the same people who were executing these incredibly complex plots were the same people who were unable to make a convincing case for the Iraq war. Compared to staging 9/11 planting few WMDs in Iraq should’ve been child’s play.

        • Vronsky

          “Compared to staging 9/11 planting few WMDs in Iraq should’ve been child’s play.”

          Indeed. We all knew that none were there, but I am still puzzled that none were ‘found’.

          • Vronsky

            Before you pounce, I consider ‘none was’ pedantic. Try it out in the above sentence and you might agree.

  • Silvio

    FYI for any interested parties:

    9/11 Film Festival to be Live Streamed Online Sept. 8th

    Thursday, Sept. 8th at 1:00 PM Pacific * 4:00 PM Eastern * 20:00 GMT

    SPEAKERS INCLUDE:
    Graeme MacQueen, PhD — Author of “The 2001 Anthrax Deception: The Case for a Domestic Conspiracy”, steering committee member of the 2011 Toronto Hearings, and a co-editor of “The Journal of 9/11 Studies.”
    Tony Rooke —- Producer of the film “Incontrovertible,” which documents his refusal in the British courts to pay fees that support “terrorism.”
    John Meaders — Highly honored CHP police officer calling for a real investigation into 9/11.
    Charles Ewing Smith — Producer of the documentary “The Demolition of Truth: Psychologists Examine 9/11,” which examines the psychological impact of 9/11, individually and collectively, and the healing process.

    FILMS INCLUDE:
    Incontrovertable
    9/11: Decade of Deception
    Demolition of Truth: Psychologists Examine 9/11

    ALSO SPEAKING:
    Mistress of Ceremonies: Bonnie Faulkner
    Attorney William Veale
    Project Censored: Peter Phillips & Mickey Huff

    More details at: http://noliesradio.org/archives/118947

    • Kempe

      Ah yes Tony Rooke. Taken to court for not paying his TV licence, made to pay £200 costs, his video “evidence” ruled irrelevant and given a conditional discharge; that is told to go and get a TV licence or face further prosecution. He caved in and bought himself a licence the following day.

      Yet the “Truth” movement would have you believe he won some kind of landmark victory!

      Another example of how they distort facts.

      • Paul Barbara

        @ Kempe August 25, 2016 at 11:12
        ‘Ah yes Tony Rooke. Taken to court for not paying his TV licence, made to pay £200 costs, his video “evidence” ruled irrelevant and given a conditional discharge; that is told to go and get a TV licence or face further prosecution. He caved in and bought himself a licence the following day.

        Yet the “Truth” movement would have you believe he won some kind of landmark victory!

        Another example of how they distort facts.’

        Indeed? Looks to me YOU are distorting the facts. You didn’t say WHY Tony Rooke was refusing to get a licence; though the Magistrate was given the evidence for Tony’s case that the BBC were complicit in assisting terrorism, and therefore he was obliged not to help fund them, the Magistrate was unable to allow the evidence, as he was governed by the strict law that stated if one watches live broadcasts in the UK one is obliged to have a TV Licence (unless one is 75 or over).

        At least the ‘Daily Mail’ has more integrity than you (not too difficult, but surprising all the same); they give the context, and even have a nice picture of the aftermath of the judgement:
        TV licence evader refused to pay because the ‘BBC covered up facts about 9/11 and claimed tower fell 20 minutes before it did’
        http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2284337/TV-licence-evader-refused-pay-BBC-covered-facts-9-11.html

        AND the prosecuting attorney chipped in to help pay the costs! Says bundles about the justice of Tony’s stance.

        And ‘He caved in and bought himself a licence the following day’ – are you quite sure? Any evidence?
        No, again you are typing made-up bs as fact.

        • Kempe

          Rooke’s excuse for not having a TV licence is irrelevant. He has a TV, he’s not over 75, he needs a licence.

          He was given the conditional discharge in 2013 and hasn’t been dragged back to court. He must therefore have bought a licence.

          • Paul Barbara

            His reason for not having a licence is very important, though irrelevant to you, and the Magistrate was unable to take his reasons into consideration from a strict legal viewpoint. But his leniency shows it was taken into consideration in his judgement.
            ‘..He has a TV, he’s not over 75, he needs a licence…’ WRONG. You can have as many TV’s as you like, and as long as you don’t watch live TV on them, no need for a licence.

            ‘..He was given the conditional discharge in 2013 and hasn’t been dragged back to court. He must therefore have bought a licence.’ WRONG AGAIN – how do you know he hasn’t been taken back to court? AND WRONG AGAIN: you ASSUME he has bought a licence; there is no MUST about it. And you were so cock-sure – ‘He went out the next day and bought one’.

            GOTCHA, as the Sun might say….

            Do they dock your payments when you screw up so abysmally??

          • Kempe

            ” You can have as many TV’s as you like, and as long as you don’t watch live TV on them, no need for a licence ”

            Nitpicking.

            “.He was given the conditional discharge in 2013 and hasn’t been dragged back to court. He must therefore have bought a licence.’ WRONG AGAIN – how do you know he hasn’t been taken back to court? ”

            Quite easily; because it would be all over every looney tune 9/11 conspiracy website, every cause loves a martyr, and it isn’t. Bear in mind that if he was brought back to court having failed to get a licence when instructed he’d be in contempt of court which carries heavy fines and even imprisonment.

            We’d have heard about it sure enough but if you think otherwise please find some evidence.

            I wouldn’t have said he was let of lightly judging by this.

            https://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/sep/24/in-court-non-payment-tv-licence-television-desperate-cases

            Sorry to disappoint but I don’t get paid to do this, I do it for my own amusement.

          • Maxter

            Kempe you make stuff up in your own head that suits your trolling agenda. Who cares whether Tony Rooke has a tv licence or not. He has put his head above the parapet for the good of truth and justice. What have you done lately?

  • Paul Barbara

    @ Kempe August 26, 2016 at 04:11
    You would know, because you assiduously follow ‘every looney tune 9/11 conspiracy website’ ‘for your own amusemrnt’ – what a sorry apology for a human being!
    So you admit to not knowing sweet FA (not ‘Football Association’) about whether he rushed out the following day to buy a licence, having ‘caved in’, but just made an ‘assumption’. TTry to distinguish between ‘assumptions’ and ‘facts’, if you can!

    And you know sooo much about ‘Looney 9/11 websites’, do you? You don’t appear to know there has been a rolling program of deliberate non-payment; I have refused myself since mid-2013, and I assure you I’m not posting this from Pentonville or Wandsworth.

    So you don’t think he was treated leniently, given fines of £1,000 are leviable? And this was for deliberate refusal to pay, not financial problems, and he didn’t get a fine at all? I wonder what Alice would make of you?

1 92 93 94