The 9/11 Post 11807


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


11,807 thoughts on “The 9/11 Post

1 98 99 100 101 102 134
  • RobG

    Yesterday the Investigatory Powers Act (aka ‘Snooper’s charter’) became law. In one sense the Investigatory Powers Act codifies what the security services have been doing totally illegally for the last two decades…

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/nov/19/extreme-surveillance-becomes-uk-law-with-barely-a-whimper

    No one ever questions the legal basis of the security services, so it’s a waste of my time to go in that direction; but what people should be really worried about is that this Act of law firmly cements Britain as a full-blown police state (this Act makes Britain by far the most repressive of any western states that call themselves ‘democracies’). With the most right wing government in history, Brits are now just a whisper away from the full works, yet most Brits are still too dumb to realise what’s going on.

    I despair.

    We’re now being told that we live in a ‘post-truth’ era; ie, we have to accept lies and propaganda as fact. This is the new reality the powers that be are trying to force on us.

    It just gets madder and madder.

    My point is, we’re now at the stage where you are no longer allowed to challenge the ‘official narrative’, and will be prosecuted for doing so.

    Welcome to your cuddly police state, folks.

    Enjoy…

    • Clark

      Rob, actually I’m not too dumb to realise what’s going on. I just don’t have the power to stop it.

      Are YOU an agent, Rob? I feel your hostility and John’s sense of superiority. You’ve certainly contributed to my depression at times, and John does little else. Do you splurge fact-free nonsense and your fantasies of lynchings across other people’s blogs in order to sap the enthusiasm of activists? Probably not. It’s probably just misdirected anger and fear, which is exactly what drives MPs to pass laws like that one.

      Returning fear and anger for fear and anger can only lead to war, but the modern luxury is that our war – yes OUR war, you and John against me and Kempe, is usually played out upon people in distant lands.

      • RobG

        Clark, they just passed a law that, figuratively speaking, is comparable to Nazi Germany in about 1938, and you blame me for having a problem with it?

        Look, what’s going on at the moment is tres difficile for us to get our heads around. We all want things to be ‘normal’, but they are quite patently not. Our coping mechanisms are all different.

        You apparently despair and want to kill yourself.

        Whereas my mission is to kill ‘them’.

        I’ll probably never again say it as bluntly as that, but that’s where I’m coming from.

        • Clark

          No, I have a problem with your statements “yet most Brits are still too dumb to realise what’s going on”, and “we’re now at the stage where you are no longer allowed to challenge the ‘official narrative’, and will be prosecuted for doing so”. The first is disrespectful and the second isn’t true. Yet.

          I also have a problem with your “mission to kill ‘them'”, because more than once your ‘them’ has included me, and seems to have included Craig and assorted anonymous commenters too. ‘Their’ job is going to be very easy if we all take to killing each other, and history shows that humans have a dreadful propensity for doing that. And if we do, presumably there was no “us and them” in the first place; presumably the violence was within all of us all along.

          • Clark

            Rob, aggression is a response to threat.

            Psychological experiments have demonstrated this. More exactly, experiments upon humans and other animals have shown that aggression is one of the most common responses to perceived threat. But obviously, aggression itself is threatening. This implies a positive feedback loop or vicious spiral of threat increasing aggression which increases threat until… disaster.

            The political class feels threatened. So do the wealthy. So do the poor. So do the established media. The aggression level is rising – brexit, Trump, Russophobia, religious intolerance, extremism. The degree of actual threat each group is under is of less relevance than their perception of it, and the power each holds.

            Suggestion welcome.

  • Paul Barbara

    Just Six Months to Go on the WTC 7 Study:
    Dr. Leroy Hulsey Shares His Preliminary Findings
    with the Fairbanks Branch of the ASCE

    Video: WTC 7 Evaluation October 2016 Update: ASCE Fairbanks Engineers host Dr. Hulsey:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKN4qilUOfs&feature=youtu.be

    UAF ASCE Student Chapter | September 29, 2016

    “The NIST report…said that this building collapsed because of fire. We determined that’s not true.”

    Video: WTC 7 Evaluation Sept 2016 Update: ASCE UAF Students host Dr. Hulsey:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8DNabmb9-k&feature=youtu.be

    • Clark

      WTC 7 Evaluation Sept 2016 Update, 39:18

      Q – “Are you privy to the information that led to NIST’s models, to the failure at level thirteen?”

      A – “Everything’s locked in vaults. You know you would think that it should be public document, right?”

      Q – “I thought that everything was released in the Commission Report.”

      A – “Oh no. […] I can’t even get the original structural engineering drawings and structural engineering calculations. It’s locked up.”

      Dr. Hulsey’s preliminary findings are that two independent simulations of behaviour of the structure at column 79 on floor 13 roughly confirm each other, both contradicting NIST’s simulation. He states that his group will proceed by modelling specific failures, and seeing if the resulting simulations match observations of the actual collapse. I think this is a worthwhile approach but they’re hindered by restriction of the original documents. I hope they can narrow down the possibilities. More videos and documents are linked from the group’s website:

      http://www.wtc7evaluation.org/

      Node, your complaint about lack of changes to building codes seems more appropriate to Building 7 than to the Twin Towers. Dr Hulsey questions the lack of changes with regard to Building 7’s collapse.

  • Node

    Hey, finally found the right term for you lot : “Believers”, with a capital “B”. It’s got just the right ironic tone. It implies that you are hopelessly naive or brainwashed.

    And like religious “believers”, there are always a few who only pretend to believe in order to defend the power structure.

    Truthers versus Believers.

    Bring it on.

      • Node

        So what do you want to be called? I did ask before

        Oh, so now you’re suddenly solicitous about the feelings of us ‘Truthers’, eh, after repeated requests not to use that term? Once you even concocted a ‘logical’ rationale for using it. Were you being hypocritical then or now?

        Actually I welcome it. It’s a sign of weakness as when Anon1 uses the term “Scotch” for “Scottish”. If you had a strong argument, you wouldn’t weaken it by resorting to mockery. You are trying to deflect the argument from logic to anger.

        • Clark

          So what term do you want me to use? You, Node, are a conspiracy theorist, and I call you that because, on essentially no evidence, you have repeatedly accused or insinuated that Kempe is part of the conspiracy that you assume to exist. I also call you a demolition theorist, for obvious reasons. But there are also those that I’ve been calling Truthers; those who only ever challenge or question challenges to Truther mythology, and who never criticise other Truthers’ assertions, no matter how outrageous, nor how much it conflicts with their own position. These are recognisable behaviours, and I need a term for those who display them. What would you like me to call them?

          • Node

            You, Node, are a conspiracy theorist, and I call you that because, on essentially no evidence, you have repeatedly accused or insinuated that Kempe is part of the conspiracy that you assume to exist

            If Kempe ever responds to my repeated requests to explain what he believes happened on 9/11 (and why is he so reluctant to do so?), I’ll be happy to take the matter up with him. But not with you because despite your behaviour, you are not the policeman of this thread.

            But there are also those that I’ve been calling Truthers; those who only ever challenge or question challenges to Truther mythology, and who never criticise other Truthers’ assertions, no matter how outrageous, nor how much it conflicts with their own position.

            …and there are those on this thread who I call Believers; those who only ever challenge or question challenges to Believer mythology, and who never criticise other Believers’ assertions, no matter how outrageous, nor how much it conflicts with their own position. I refer of course to Kempe’s refusal to challenge your preposterous rig-for-demolition-in-a-day theory.

          • Clark

            Oh, there’s an unremarkable explanation for Building 7’s collapse, is there? FEMA didn’t find one, NIST proposed a “new type of progressive collapse”, and you obviously have it sussed with your theory that it was rigged for demolition while still occupied and that this is being covered up by all the US State authorities, ably assisted by Kempe – who you were treating as an agent for months or years before my speculation about military demolition methods.

            I think maybe it’s you who “knows when to keep his head down”.

        • Clark

          And I’m getting angry with John Goss for his dishonest discussion techniques, for his avoidance of logic – certainly not for his use of logic since he so rarely uses it. You are projecting and displaying a sort of tribalism. John’s nuclear demolition and no-planes theories demonstrate complete disregard for both logic and evidence, but you criticise only me and Kempe, merely because we present facts that contradict your religion of demolition theory.

          • Node

            And I’m getting angry with John Goss for his dishonest discussion techniques

            … and John Goss is getting angry with you for exactly the same reasons.

            but you criticise only me and Kempe, merely because we present facts that contradict your religion of demolition theory.

            I always give reasons when I criticise someone or their opinions, and I’ve never given the simplistic and insulting one you have just ascribed to me.

  • John Goss

    “John, the structure DID breach the aircraft. They were shredded, but they still ended up inside the buildings. That’s not a surprise . . .”

    Oh yes it is Clark. Your own common sense should tell you this. Especially after I gave a video link which showed the wreckage in the street from a much smaller bomber which hit the Empire State Building. This skyscraper had hardly any vertical steel columns and the plane hit none. The fuselage went through concrete walls – much easier to penetrate than structural steel and as the photo Kempe posted shows slightly bent a horizontal steel beam. Your so-called planes, if anyone can believe it, actually cut through multiple steel beams. Now as an engineer I know that cannot happen. I can mill aluminium with a cutter speed of 1000 revs per minute with a HSS end mill. But I cannot mill even mild steel with an aluminium cutter.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3203629/Singapore-Airlines-plane-emergency-landing-Turkey-running-flock-storks.html

    I find it increasingly difficult to debate with you because you seem not to be able to grasp the basics. I am not talking down to you. I am trying to get you to accept some basic truths so we have common ground to move on.

    • Clark

      I know you don’t cut steel with aluminium tools; steel is harder than aluminium. But are you saying that aluminium can’t ever break through steel? So what are you saying would have happened to “real” aircraft? And what made the holes in the buildings? (That’s three questions. Please reply with testable assertions).

    • Clark

      “This skyscraper had hardly any vertical steel columns …”

      That’s not true. The columns were distributed more evenly, and I’d bet considerably more per unit of cross-sectional area. Want to bet?

      “…concrete walls – much easier to penetrate than structural steel

      (cough) Have you considered momentum?

        • Clark

          Kempe, the Twin Towers didn’t have stone facing, did they? I thought the steel perimeter columns had just fire resistant material and aluminium cladding.

        • John Goss

          It’s a good photo and verifies what we all know to be true, that the empire state building had vertical steel girders 20 feet apart. The bomber punched a hole through the concrete 18 x 20 feet in size (probably about the size of the fuselage I’m guessing. The wings appear not to have punched any holes and I think I can work out why.

          Compare the 20 feet between ESB girders and the prefabricated outer skeleton of the twin towers which were 2 feet apart (that is 10 times as many). This is a much stronger construction which enabled skyscrapers to go higher.

          http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/general-article/newyork-engineering/

          • Clark

            “This is a much stronger construction which enabled skyscrapers to go higher”

            No, it’s a lighter construction that enabled taller buildings that were cheaper.

      • John Goss

        As to concrete versus steel buy yourself a lump hammer and try it out for yourself.

        😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀

        “Want to bet?”

        Yes. If you are talking about the cross section of the outer walls of the buildings. Actually, no because I don’t gamble (or very infrequently).

        I am pleased you can see that aluminium does not cut steel. You’re getting somewhere. Now having observed that a flock of storks can do the damage they can do to a large passenger plane perhaps you will look again at the photograph you posted of the alleged aircraft impact and find me aircraft shards, bits of plane, passengers, seats, tailplanes, wings, luggage, anything, (apart from a pilot’s passport) that shows a plane hit the building.

        Then watch some cartoons and you will see villainous characters punching holes in solid structures the same shape as their bodies, usually spreadeagled bodies. You can do that with cartoons.

        • Clark

          STOP TALKING DOWN TO ME.

          Please discuss fairly and logically. I asked you questions above. As usual you ignored them. You seem disrespectful and it upsets me. I feel angry with you, John. You seem to be trying to give impressions to others rather than addressing facts, and I resent that.

          I’m betting that the overall density of the Empire State building was higher than that of the Twin Towers, that more steel was used per unit volume, and more steel per unit area of horizontal cross-section.

        • Clark

          First-Responder Eyewitnesses of Airplane Parts / Debris on 9/11:

          M.D. MICHAEL GUTTENBERG (Office of Medical Affairs)
          The other thing that was actually evident, though, is what appeared to be some plane parts, like some circular pieces of a plane, and lots of shoes. I don’t know if that was women jumping out of their–jumping out of their heels to run, but there were — just impressed me there were no — you know, there were no injuries on the street at that point, but there was lots of shoes all over the place and plane parts.
          http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110005.PDF

          FIREFIGHTER MICHAEL WERNICK
          I was going down south on Church Street, against traffic on Church Street and I pulled up right behind St. Paul’s Cemetery. . . Like when we went to the one, we went down the West Side Highway, we pulled up over here. As we pulled out here, there was so much debris, the Lieutenant said, “Just park it over here.” So, you know, this cemetery, there was papers flying all over the place, there were engines all over, plane parts, building parts, and then we proceeded to walk down Vesey Street into the north tower.
          http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110080.PDF

          CHIEF JERRY GOMBO (EMS)
          Everybody was wearing their helmet, which was good because there was debris, like just different types of parts. It might have been plane parts, in fact, they did look like it, on the floor with stuff coming down as well. . . . At the time of the impact, we were able to feel heat that was generated from the explosion at this command post, which was across West Street, and West is fairly large street with that island in there, and debris was showering all over West Street.
          http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110100.PDF

          FDNY CAPTAIN MICHAEL DONOVAN
          We were actually still on Church Street. We heard the plane briefly, the earth shook, the buildings shook, a tremendous fireball overhead. I thought there was a bomb or an explosion. A tremendous fireball, flaming debris, pieces of the airplane, fuselage, landing gear, pieces of the building.
          http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110205.PDF

          LIEUTENANT GEORGE J. DESIMONE (FDNY)
          As we pulled close to the Trade Center, the tower, we saw airplane parts. We saw bodies. We saw body parts. What we did then was we decided to move a little bit further west on West Street to the furthermost point that we could.
          http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110129.PDF

          EMT-D CHRISTOPHER ATTANASIO
          Upon arrival, towers one and two were both ablaze. The second plane had hit the second tower already. Both towers were totally engulfed. People were jumping out of the buildings. There was airplane fuselage and landing gear around the site. Body parts, victims’ remains on the floor. There were some injuries on the street. Some cars were on fire.
          http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110204.PDF

          EMT-P KATHY ZARR
          Q. When you went into Manhattan, you said you went through the tunnel. You went through the Battery Tunnel?
          A. Yes.
          Q. Do you remember how you came up?
          A. We made a right-hand turn, and all you saw was airplane parts and body parts in the street.
          http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110209.PDF

          * * * * * * * * * *

          And another nineteen testimonies linked from here:
          http://debunkingnoplanes.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/first-responder-eye-witnesses-of-planes.html#plane_debris_witnesses

          • John Goss

            You support these testimonies because they fit the government story. But you dismiss the countless reports of explosions because they don’t. I don’t know whether aircraft hit the Twin Towers. Most people, even Scientists and Engineers for truth believe they did even though they don’t explain how that can be. What I do know is that there is no way aluminium would cut straight through steel.

            As to the airplane wheel on a supposed segment of wall panel onto a roof in St Nicholas Church as offered as evidence from Kempe’s link.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSi_9S-S6kI

          • Clark

            “You support these testimonies because they fit the government story”

            Don’t fucking tell me what I think, understand?

            “But you dismiss the countless reports of explosions…”

            And don’t fucking LIE about me either. I ACCEPT testimony of explosions, but I do NOT regard them as evidence of “controlled demolition”. Fires cause things to explode. Remember that I wrote that because next time I’ll fucking shout.

          • Clark

            And don’t fucking lie about your fellow human either. Kempe posted links to multiple photographs, not just the one you chose to highlight.

  • Clark

    I’m posting this blind because I’m too scared to look at the comments on this thread.

    This may seem melodramatic, and I know I’m cracking up, but I think we’re looking at the root of all evil, in our interaction right here on this thread. If we can just pause, and let our shared humanity outweigh our differences; maybe; if each of us can look into ourselves instead of seeing evil in the Other; maybe, just maybe, we can do a little to counter the frightening swing towards – well, to the Right, towards in-groups, towards “Us” being better than and constantly in conflict with “them” –

    We HAVE to get it right this time. We have nukes now, and there are billions of us crawling all over this planet.

    Dear God I’m scared.

    Node, I sorry I told YOU what you were thinking. But really, I can’t see that Kempe has done anything that justifies the persecution he receives.

    Kempe, I can’t remember that Alaskan forensic engineering professor’s name without reading comments I’m too fragile to look at right now, but I think that he deserves more respect from you. Watch the WTC 7 Evaluation Updates. He’s just an academic who can’t make his simulation match NIST’s.

    John Goss, beware your own sense of righteousness. It is the seed of all you profess to hate. Take this as coming from someone who got an unusually clear view from the inside in childhood.

    RobG, I think you’re closest to understanding what I’m on about.

    Best wishes to all. I hope we can fix this. Bye for now.

    • John Goss

      Clark, it worries me when you talk about cracking up. Perhaps I have not treated you with the respect you deserve and I apologise if that is the case. I did not want to answer your three questions because I saw them as a distraction and not at all easy if even possible to answer. I will try to answer them now primarily to show you that even though on this 9/11 issue I have not been able to find the science to support your opinion I do hold you in some esteem on other subjects, like your knowledge of computers and astronomy.

      Here goes.

      “But are you saying that aluminium can’t ever break through steel?”

      No. I don’t doubt that if a heavy chunk of aluminium was pelted at a very thin piece of steel (shim) held taut it would fracture it. However shim is very strong despite being thin as you probably know from feeler gauges. So technically aluminium under certain circumstances could rip through steel. Not in the case of the twin towers though.

      https://www.cromwell.co.uk/shop/materials-and-maintenance/packing-shim/0-020%22×6%22×100%22-steel-shim/p/IND4151025R

      “So what are you saying would have happened to “real” aircraft?”

      I cannot answer this question. I can only speculate. Hitting the prefabricated I-beams of the twin towers would be almost like hitting solid steel. The two foot gaps between the beams would let part of the fuselage enter the windows to some extent. The parts of the fuselage hitting the solid beams would compact in a similar way to crushing a beer can under your foot (or a better example might be the way cars are crushed). The fuel would shoot inside and cause a horrendous fire in the main body of the floors it entered. The steel beams would no doubt bend from the impact but I do not know by how much, or how much the aircraft areas entering the windows would penetrate before an elastic effect from the crushing carcass of the plane pulled them back. N.B. This as I said is speculation and only by actually flying a plane into the twin towers could we possibly know what would happen.

      “And what made the holes in the buildings?”

      Who knows? Just because I believe I know what could not happen does not mean I know what did happen. That is why there needs to be a thorough investigation. So even when I attempt to answer I am not even certain what would happen. Perhaps Richard Hall has part of the answer in the link I posted above. But even if that was part of the answer it would likely not have caused the collapse of the towers which appears to my mind from the squibs that they were brought down by controlled demolition.

      You don’t have to agree with any of the above but it is an attempt to answer your questions simply because you were annoyed that I had not answered them. I don’t have the answers. Hypothesis is not an area I like to get into because people on this thread use it against you and quote it or misquote it as being your opinion. I was not ignoring your questions so much as avoiding them.

      Clark you are entitled to your views as much as I to mine even though we cannot see eye to eye on this. I am aware you were getting just as frustrated with me as I was with you. Many people are struggling to make sense of 9/11. So I will try not to feel so self righteous.

      No ill feelings.

    • RobG

      Clark, I like and respect you, but I am not going to treat you with kid gloves.

      If you have an opinion expect it to be challenged, especially on a thread like this.

      If you’re mentally fragile at the moment (as most of us are at times) I would venture that it might not be a good idea to post on boards like Craig’s, where debate is often vigorous.

      I guess you’re genuine, and you don’t spout the same total nonsense time after time as the right wing Establishment trolls who infest this blog.

  • Clark

    John Goss – I’m posting this without reading comments.

    I’ve been thinking about your claim that aluminium can never break through steel. This seems to be wrong from a consideration of basic principles.

    A metal object subject to a force will deform. An object, including a metal object, deforms elastically up to its elastic limit. Beyond the elastic limit, the object will deform permanently. For even greater forces, the metal object will deform so much that the metal breaks or tears.

    The degree of force (or more probably pressure, ie. force per unit area) at which a material breaks or tears has been determined for different substances. Tables of such figures have been drawn up, for different substances and different ways in which it can break, for instance by stretching, fracture or shearing. However, such figures are, I believe, finite, and therefore can be exceeded.

    When two objects collide they will exert forces upon each other. According to Newton’s laws, those forces will be equal and opposite. The effects of force upon each object can therefore be considered separately. The single question “can aluminium break steel” therefore does not have a yes/no answer. Instead, we have two questions based upon the equal and opposite forces;

    (1) is the force generated by the collision sufficient to break the aluminium object? and
    (2) is the force generated by the collision sufficient to break the steel object?

    There are four possible sets of answers to this pair of questions, which are:

    [no, no], [no, yes], [yes, no] and [yes, yes].

    Low collision speeds will produce small forces leading to the first answer [no, no].

    Medium collision speeds producing greater forces will lead to the second or third answers [no, yes] or [yes, no]. One of these answers may be ruled out by differences in the properties of the objects.

    High collision speeds will produce high forces leading to the fourth answer [yes, yes] where both the aluminium object and the steel object break.

    * * * * * * * *

    Therefore, at a high enough collision speed, the Twin Towers’ perimeters would have broken allowing the aircraft to pass within the perimeter. Do you agree?

    • Clark

      Now, I pose the following questions.

      (1) Is my comment from which this comment subtends in any way political?
      (2) Am I doing something immoral by considering this matter.

      After posting my comment above I scrolled up slightly and I saw that Node was instructing me to leave the thread, and claiming to be in complete agreement with RobG. This is ironic. Glenn, John Goss and others have accused me of driving others from the thread, but I am actually being instructed to leave the thread.

      I will not. I refuse, and I call you out as bullies, carrying the seeds of fascism. Don’t pretend your instructions that I leave are for my own good. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Beneath your liberal façades lie your desire to dominate; over other people and over truth itself. Node has already stated his right to abuse Kempe. You would drive me from this thread to whittle challenge down to one, who you would, indeed already have, subjected to a concerted campaign of denigration.

      No. I will not leave. Match your no doubt liberal-seeming language with actually liberal deeds. Make room for me and accord me respect, and ADDRESS the points I raise.

    • John Goss

      I’m sorry Clark. I cannot agree. Substances (metals and alloys included) come in different masses, different densities, different hardnesses, different weights and some will give before others. These differences, in an extreme example, dictate that you can throw tomatoes at a wall a million times and the results will always be the same. The harder you throw them the more damage you will do to the tomatoes. You won’t damage the wall.

      • Clark

        You don’t need to apologise for disagreeing, but you do need to back up such assertions with calculations. Tomatoes are mostly water, aren’t they?

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9hAM68K9OU

        I think that settles it in my favour. You claim to understand metals. Prove it by calculating an approximate speed at which aircraft would breach the Twin Towers’ perimeters.

      • Clark

        “…and some will give before others.”

        Yes, and if they collide fast enough, BOTH will give, because the forces are equal and opposite. After all these weeks of lecturing me about Newton’s third law, it seems that you don’t “grasp” it yourself!

        Node, this is YOUR fault. If you didn’t encourage such people so, constantly inflating their egos, they might think a bit more and learn something 😉

        • John Goss

          This is what really annoys me about you. You talk nonsense physics and expect people to come round to your viewpoint, with insults about ‘such people’ needing to ‘think a bit more and learn something’. It’s not me talking down to you. It’s the other way round.

          Also I do not need to do calculations because other groups have already done them. Others are prepared to do them if the get the funding. The onus is on you to prove that aluminium can slice through thick steel girders. Impossible though this is I don’t envy your many years trying to prove something that cannot be done.

          When you wrote: “You would drive me from this thread to whittle challenge down to one, who you would, indeed already have, subjected to a concerted campaign of denigration” it was clear to me that no degree of fact would ever change your mind. You are here for the duration. The Lone Ranger. Your good against our evil. It is a battle of wits for you to prove the impossible. The picture I get is that you see the rest of us as just sniping at you.

          You are wrong. I leave you to your crusade.

  • Clark

    I reviewed recent comments after posting my comment of November 22, 14:49, and have not done so again since. Thanks for the supportive messages.

    I expect that some object to my use of the word ‘fascism’ so I shall explain. Firstly, I do NOT mean “Truthers are morally repugnant and far more evil than the population in general” which is usually how the word is taken. I DO mean that all ideologies spring from aspects of human psychology, that we’re all made of the same stuff, and so we ought to be alert to the processes whereby aspects of our psychology manifest behaviours which we would frown upon were we to notice consciously: –

    “Fascio (plural fasci) is an Italian word literally meaning “a bundle” or “a sheaf”, and figuratively league, and which was used in the late 19th century to refer to political groups of many different (and sometimes opposing) orientations. A number of nationalist fasci later evolved into the 20th century Fasci movement, which became known as fascism.

    – During the 19th century, the bundle of rods, in Latin called fasces and in Italian fascio, came to symbolize strength through unity, the point being that whilst each independent rod was fragile, as a bundle they were strong.”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascio

    …and this is exactly what we observe among the Truthers*. They obviously do not agree with each other but they never actually discuss or even mention their disagreements, and they sure as Hell combine forces to attack anyone they deem to be an “outsider”, which is anyone who threatens their hobby of myth-propagation by raising annoying little things like facts or reason. Belief in “controlled demolition” of the Twin Towers seems to be the main indicator which Truthers use to decide friend-or-foe.

    * (Node objects to the term “Truthers” but so far has not suggested an alternative. I will therefore continue to use the term until a suitable alternative turns up. If “9/11 Sceptics” is suggested I will not use it, since the group I’m describing do not apply scepticism to each other’s assertions and do not object when members of their group vilify those actually sceptical of any of the myths that Truthers collude in not questioning).

    I have come to find Trutherism distasteful for many reasons. For a start, I have been personally vilified by Truthers. Node, who tells me that I “am not the policeman of this thread”, has told me that I should apologise for using angry language in response to being smeared – this is fascist ideology in action, that group-approved abuse goes unacknowledged (presumably unrecognised), and those thus abused are expected to apologise for reacting. Trutherism also resembles the environment of religious indoctrination of my childhood which, frankly, ruined my life.

    But those are merely proximate, personal reasons. 9/11 mythology propagation is also offensive because thousands of people were killed, tens of thousands were injured and bereaved, millions died or had their lives ruined by the ensuing wars, and it also denies the actions of the perpetrators who, despite their religiously indoctrinated wrong-headedness, do have serious grievances with Western foreign policy. It is trite and flippant to practice a hobby of usurping this history with fairy-tales and impossibilities. By all means improve the accuracy of the account through the effort of serious research, but please don’t trivialise it by propagating patent nonsense.
    – – – – – – –

    Replies to comments up to 14:49:

    John Goss and RobG, thanks for your friendly comments, which I hadn’t yet seen when I commented at 14:49. Thanks for your concern for my emotional well-being. I am not alone in “cracking up”. Most of the population are regularly taking either “medication” or self-administered drugs these day, and the actions of many public figures including most politicians clearly are not rational. On the large scale, misleading media (mainstream and otherwise), perpetual war and widespread and serious environmental degradation attest that humanity as a whole is not behaving sanely, and never has.

    However, most individuals’ response to this is to externalise (ie. psychologically project) the problem with the assumption “I am sane; the problem lies in them“, with different people choosing a different “them”. This is natural, since none of us can consciously know our unconscious. It is also deadly; we’re all walking around stark raving bonkers, each uniquely blind to our own insanity and busily blaming those-not-like-us, which is a perfect recipe for conflict.

    A part of my own problem is that I’ve recognised the problem above, and now acknowledge that it is insane to trust my own sanity. I have difficulty maintaining confidence, which increases my vulnerability.
    – – – – – – – –

    John Goss, you are of course entitled to your opinions, but not to propagate opinion as fact. For instance, the speed necessary for an aircraft to penetrate a mesh of steel box-columns is a matter of fact, not opinion, and it can be calculated to a fair degree of accuracy from other well established facts. Until you have done the calculations and confirmed your work, you can have only an opinion, and opinions should be expressed as opinions, not as facts. You certainly should not try to hammer your opinions into others such as myself by denigrating the recipient and claiming expertise that you do not have.

    Opinions imply other opinions. The speed necessary for penetration can be calculated and academics have done so. If your opinion is that the aircraft could not have breached the perimeters, you need to account for the silence of the scientific and engineering communities, not just in the US but in Europe, Russia, China etc. Or you need to find their statements of the impossibility of this aspect of the account.
    – – – – – – – –

    RobG, there shouldn’t be any question of treating me “with kid gloves”, nor with “right wing Establishment trolls”. Craig’s moderation rules say to engage with arguments, not commenters. It shouldn’t matter if a commenter is the Devil incarnate; it’s his argument you need to defeat, not him personally. Calling him a troll and expressing your desire to kill him does nothing to persuade other readers of the falsity of his assertions or of the weakness of his argument. Descending to his level actually gives him the advantage.

    • John Goss

      “If your opinion is that the aircraft could not have breached the perimeters, you need to account for the silence of the scientific and engineering communities, not just in the US but in Europe, Russia, China etc. Or you need to find their statements of the impossibility of this aspect of the account.”

      Actually I don’t need to account for anyone or any government’s statements or non-statements but I suspect China, Russia and other countries have their opinions but realise to officially challenge the US government fabrication would likely lead to an international incident.

      • Clark

        John, I asked about “scientific and engineering communities”, but your reply concerns “governments”. Is it your opinion that all scientists and engineers are under the complete control of the governments of their countries? If so, could they not post their academic papers to Wikileaks, or post anonymously to university or mechanical engineering blogs? You seem to overestimate the power of governments.

  • Node

    The editors of Europhysics News are at it again.

    Europhysics News is the magazine of the European physics community. It is owned by the European Physical Society whose membership includes the national physical societies of 42 countries, and some 3200 individual members. The Deutsche Physikalische Gesellschaft, the world’s largest organization of physicists, is a major member.

    A few months ago, Europhysics News published an article titled “15 years later: On the physics of high-rise building collapse.” Their carefully worded disclaimer included the words “we consider that this feature is sufficiently technical and interesting to merit publication for our readers.” Under the circumstances, that was an endorsement.

    The editors have recently commented on the article again. They had asked NIST for a response but NIST stone-walled. The editors went on to explain their publishing policy and then disassociated themselves from conspiracy theories :

    “It is shocking that the published article is being used to support conspiracy theories related to the attacks on the WTC. The Editors of EPN do not endorse or support these views.”

    However, they also said :

    “Since some controversy remains, even among more competent people in the field, we considered that the correct scientific way to settle this debate was to publish the manuscript and possibly trigger an open discussion leading to an undisputable truth based on solid arguments.”

    I suggest this comment was as carefully considered and worded as the original disclaimer. Therefore before the Believers crow too loudly about the editors’ lamentations about conspiracy theories, they should consider the significance of the inclusion of the words “competent” and “undisputable.”

    http://www.europhysicsnews.org/component/content/article/15-news/670-15-years-later-on-the-physics-of-high-rise-building-collapses

    • Clark

      Understandably, Node didn’t quote this part of NIST’s statement:

      “Based on the recommendations from this investigation, two sets of major and far-reaching building and fire code changes have been adopted by the International Code Council (ICC) into the ICC’s I-Codes (specifically the International Building Code, or IBC, and the International Fire Code, or IFC). The 40 code changes were adopted less than five years from the release of the final report on WTC 1 and 2, and less than two years following the release of the final report on WTC 7. This is an extraordinarily rapid pace in the code making and approval process”

      and also omitted the editors’ changes to submission policy:

      “In future, prospective authors will be asked to provide an abstract of the proposed article, as well as an indication of other publications to allow the editors to better assess the content of the invited articles”

      I do wish NIST would release ALL their data, but private companies effectively control the government in the US so it’s not going to happen. I sympathise with NIST because they are caught between legal restrictions imposed on behalf of private companies and the impossibility of satisfying 9/11 Truthers.

      • Node

        Understandably, Node didn’t quote this part of NIST’s statement: …..

        NIST began their statement by saying they “feel” there has been no new evidence since 2008, “therefore, nothing new that we can contribute to the discussion.” I feel I accurately summarised their position by saying they stone-walled, and I gave the link so people could check for themselves.

        Now how about commenting on the substance of my post? — That the European Physical Society, whose membership includes the national physical societies of 42 countries, implies that “competent” people do not find the official story of 9/11 “indisputable.”

      • Paul Barbara

        Oh, poor NIST! Everyone (except Clark) lambastes them for a dastardly cover up. Wonder why?

        ‘Last Man Out on 9/11 Makes Shocking Disclosures’:
        https://coto2.wordpress.com/2011/08/10/last-man-out-on-911-makes-shocking-disclosures/

        ‘…..Mongello was in the lobby of the neighboring South Tower when the first aircraft plowed into the North Tower where Rodriguez was located.

        It would be another sixteen minutes before the second aircraft would rip into the one Mongello was in.

        Yet, within a minute of the first plane hitting the North Tower, an elevator in the South Tower exploded to smithereens right before his eyes!

        Mongello and others were literally blown backwards by the blast, as people—many, horribly burned—began to run willy-nilly shrieking in pain, shock, and sheer terror. Thick, black smoke could be seen billowing out of the now exposed elevator shaft, and the pungent smell of “gunpowder” was very evident.

        Again, just as with the North Tower, this explosion occurred inside a building that had not yet been struck by a plane!

        How could a plane crashing into the North Tower possibly have caused elevators in the South Tower to explode?

        The esteemed 9/11 Commission never bothered to ask.

        Worse, and to his utter disbelief, Rodriguez later discovered that his statements were completely omitted from the official record. As a result, not one word of this decorated hero’s startling testimony appeared in the much-ballyhooed 9/11 Commission Report, a document that continues to be touted as “the most detailed, definitive study of the events of 9/11.”

        Furthermore, Rodriguez was told, quite emphatically, not to speak about the explosions to others until “further investigations” had been carried out. As the world knows, this has yet to happen.

        As a result of much public pressure, the Commission’s investigation records were finally made public—seven years later, in January 2009.

        Rodriguez was stunned to find that his testimony was among those marked “restricted,” and thus inaccessible to the public. His crucial evidence remains restricted to this day…….’

        I actually learned something new reading that – I hadn’t been aware an elevator had blown up in the South Tower before the ‘plane’ struck the building.

        • Clark

          I’m still looking into William Rodriguez. It looks like he became a Truther between June and October 2004, when he met controversial (possibly discredited) lawyer Phil Berg. Need to find and translate Rodriguez’s TV statements in Spanish pre June 2004.

          • Clark

            And no, “everyone” doesn’t think that of NIST, and I think they’re legally restricted on matters concerning the structure and performance of the Twin Towers rather than covering up demolition. Need to compare corresponding FEMA and NIST reports.

          • Paul Barbara

            No, he IMMEDIATELY was saying their were explosions in the Towers, and that’s why the PTB dropped him like a hot potato; he had been given a medal by G W Bush, and had been offered his own TV show; he was also encouraged to take up politics.
            But when he continued to speak of the explosions he heard, that was it. He was even briefly put on the ‘No Fly’ list, a genuine American Hero!
            He claims to have lost two hundred friends in the WTC that day (he had worked there getting on for twenty years).

          • Clark

            That’s right John, ALL the world’s governments – Iran, Syria, Russia, the lot of them – support the United States.

            And the Twin Towers’ perimeters were made of box columns, not I-beams.

      • Node

        The video in your link doesn’t work. Here’s another video of the same airplane crash referred to :
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zA5FMFVbVZ0

        Clark has a point when he says that under exceptional circumstances, a softer metal can cut a stronger one. Imagine an aluminium cannonball being fired at a sheet of tightly stretched steel foil. The question therefore becomes “Were the circumstances exceptional enough on 9/11?”

        Common sense tells me no, but the Believers will want more than that. An experiment occurs to me which I will carry out within the next few weeks and report back. My friend has a powerful air rifle. I will fashion some aluminium pellets which exactly match the dimensions of the correct airgun pellets and fire them at various thicknesses of steel. I have a variety of steel shims going down to 0.025mm. I can work out the speed of the pellet so I can calculate its momentum. The results will probably not be completely conclusive one way or the other, but I believe the ball park figures may give a strong indication of the feasibility of aluminium penetrating steel. Let me know if you have any suggestions for refining this experiment.

        • Node

          Actually, thinking about my proposed experiment above, and anticipating some objections from both sides of the argument, I’ve thought of a slightly more realistic setup.

          I will recreate a scale size portion of a Boeing 767 wing, which I presume is made from aluminium struts covered with aluminium sheet – I’ll research this. Using aluminium foil to represent the wing covering, I’ll source appropriately thick aluminium for the wing framework. I’ll make as accurate a model as I can, and where there is any doubt I’ll overestimate the dimensions so that I err on the side of extra wing strength rather than less. Then, I’ll source a metre long steel rod with a cross section proportionate in size to the wing materials. If there is any doubt, I will err on the side of making the steel weaker rather than stronger.

          I reckon that if I whip that rod as fast as I can, the tip will be moving at several hundred mph, but I’ll research this too.

          OK, so picture the set-up, a framework of aluminium wire covered with aluminium foil being hit at several hundred mph by the tip of a steel rod which is several times the cross-sectional area of the aluminium wire. What do you think will happen? As the experimenter, I must keep an open mind, but there’s nothing stopping others from speculating.

          I’m still going to go ahead with the air rifle experiment though. Easier to get precise data.

          • Clark

            Node, there might be a problem in experimenting with a scale model. I have a suspicion that metal may not behave the same way in bulk as in very thin sheets or wires.

            There is also a problem with making a model of just a wing. Assuming the events were real (?!), the nose and fuselage punched an initial hole in the perimeter. The swept-back wings then tore progressively outwards from that hole. Think of opening an envelope or rip-sawing hardboard; the blade is angled relative to the work and this makes cutting much easier.

            Another matter is the length of aircraft material impinging upon the perimeter box-columns. Consider. The leading edge impacts the horizontal grid of steel causing both to begin deforming, but behind the leading edge is more oncoming material, stretching several times as far as the width of the (hollow) box columns.

            I don’t think we can get the thickness of the plate the box columns were welded from. I think that’s part of the information NIST were prevented from releasing. I think that only the thickest and thinnest dimensions were released.

          • Paul Barbara

            No need to do this: a guy is planning to use an actual part of a real Boeing wing, the strongest part (nearest the fuselage), firmly attach it to a rocket sled which will be collided with a steel-beam structure of the same thickness and strength of the beams where the ‘plane’ was supposed to have hit one of the buildings, fill the wing with water (to simulate the fuel) and get it tested.
            I contacted him, but he didn’t respond. He is crowd-funding the project.
            He ‘hopes’ to get a facility in the States to do the test for him; I am extremely doubtfull any would, so I suggested other, non-friendly States could be asked.
            I should imagine Russia, Iran or China could be approached, or even Cuba. This may be why he didn’t respond to me.

        • John Goss

          If you do this experiment I should be interested to know what happens to standard lead pellets too. They are heavier but aluminium is stronger. Also I do not know what might happen to the barrel of the airgun from an aluminium slug.

          But without your experiment I can tell you that the wings of aeroplanes fall off if they catch the tops of trees. I know there is no way they can go through steel. Absolutely no way.

          • Clark

            “I can tell you that the wings of aeroplanes fall off if they catch the tops of trees”

            Not necessarily. Aircraft crash test, DC7, 1964. Modern aircraft are presumably stronger. At 31 seconds, the wing hits two wooden poles. The tip of the wing is severed by the outermost pole, but the inboard part of the wing is not. Impact speed about 159 knots. Slow motion views from the front begin at 05:40. Side view across the impacted wing begins at 06:40:

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CZxvu85VM4

            You accept that the Towers’ perimeter columns would be bent and that you don’t know by how much. The important question is: would they bend enough to fracture? You’ve provided no reason that the elastic limit of the box columns would be exceeded but that the fracture limit would not.

          • John Goss

            “The important question is: would they bend enough to fracture?”

            If I told you no and gave an explanation I doubt if you would believe me. I will try anyway.

            Structural steel does not fracture at all as far as I am aware. Cast iron does. You can hit a cast iron housing, for example, with a hammer and create a fracture at the weakest point. Cast iron is only useful for specific tasks but it is easy to mould, cheap and for the jobs it is used for is satisfactory.

            As far as I am aware none of the structural steel beams of the twin towers fractured even under heat. Though I believe some may have been cut. Not by a plane however. Something beyond the normal behaviour of metals went on there. When I said the structural I-beams would bend I only meant marginally. I’m sure when the designers of the towers made the gaps between the structural steel only two feet apart they took into account what had happened in the Empire State Building in 1945, the up-girders of which were 20 feet apart.

            For the fuselage, with the main body and weight behind it, to go through structural steel is absolutely impossible. For the wings to go through it is totally out of this world. I have forced myself this week to watch some footage of plane crashes. They disturb me because you know, or surmise, for every one there is a fatality involved. The wings fall off. The tail section falls off. Everything falls off the plane. It is only aluminium after all and designed to go through air.

            I have machined countless aluminium and titanium parts for aircraft. Titanium, while being light too, is much stronger than aluminium. My experience is that in thin sections titanium is subject to buckling. Anyway they would not use it for the main body of the aircraft, partly because of the expense, and partly because it is heavier. Aircraft fly in air. They break up if they hit anything.

            Now I will watch your video.

          • Clark

            John, you may be right that typical structural steel would have prevented the wings from breaching the perimeter. However, it seems that parts of the Twin Towers were constructed from more brittle steel:

            http://911-engineers.blogspot.co.uk/2007/06/berkeley-engineer-searches-for-truth.html

            he says the designers used stronger steel (measured in what is known as “yield strength”) in some columns than is allowed by any U.S. building codes, and that such steel is less flexible — and therefore more brittle — than the type traditionally used in such buildings.

            – As a result of such design elements, he argues, when the two airliners smashed into the upper floors of the towers, both planes plunged all the way in, wings and all. Airliners carry much of their fuel in their wings. His model clearly shows that in the initial fight between the plane and the building’s exterior, the plane won, easily breaching the structure.

            – “It’s like a soda can hit with a pencil,” says Mr. Astaneh-Asl. “It was so easy that the plane went in without any damage and took the thousands of gallons of jet fuel in.”

            – The structural innovations meant the developers saved money because they could use less steel, says Mr. Astaneh-Asl.
            […]
            – Would a traditional structure have done better?

            – To try to answer that question, Mr. Astaneh-Asl and his team made another computer model in which they altered the design of the north tower’s structure to make it more consistent with what the researcher calls standard engineering-design practice. Then he ran the same simulated plane into the structure in the same place it hit on September 11, 2001.

            – In that scenario, the airplane’s wings are torn off, and therefore kept out of the building, when they hit the outer wall, while the fuselage still pierces the wall. “When it gets inside, there’s not very much fuel,” he says. Government reports found that it was not the damage from the planes, but the subsequent fires that weakened the steel and caused the buildings’ collapse.
            […]
            – Mr. Astaneh-Asl […] exasperated by what has come to be the accepted wisdom among engineers: that there was nothing wrong with the buildings. “I cannot see why the entire profession has agreed to sit in this convenient seat of saying that there is nothing wrong with our work,” he says.

          • Clark

            “Structural steel does not fracture at all as far as I am aware”

            Then you need to improve your awareness. All steels will fracture under sufficient load. The more ductile the steel the more it deforms first.

        • John Goss

          More importantly than nearly passing through it breaks in half as well as bouncing back. And this is lead. Anybody who has worked with lead flashing for roofing knows just how pliable and soft this metal is. You have much less chance of cutting any other metal with lead. Even an aluminium tool would probably cut it. I hope this video which Clark discovered has shown him how impossible it is for aluminium to go through steel.

          it is the bounceback from any plane, and I am convinced there were none, that would have caused the non-existent wreckage that is, not unremarkably, unseen in the photograph of alleged aircraft impact on the South Tower of the World Trade Centre. Thanks Clark for helping us with this.

          • Kempe

            Lead is also softer than bone so if I were to shoot you in the head the bullet would just bounce off harmlessly; right? Just like a 140 ton aircraft travelling at nearly 500 mph would bounce off the WTC.

            So please enlighten us as to what did make the very visible holes in the WTC and what thousands of witnesses saw in the air that day.

      • Clark

        “why don’t we have rotary aluminum blades and hacksaws for cutting steel today?”

        Because they’d wear out within seconds. Durability wasn’t an issue on 9/11.

        • Paul Barbara

          Huge breakthrough: ‘Former NIST Employee Speaks Out with LTE in Europhysics News’:
          http://us1.campaign-archive2.com/?u=d03bf3ffcac549c7dc7888ef5&id=98c26d63f5&e=%5BUNIQID%5D

          ‘Two days ago, Europhysics News released its first issue since the publication of “15 years later: On the physics of high-rise building collapses,” which has now been viewed nearly 350,000 times since its release — and which even caused the magazine’s server to break down at one point.

          Lo and behold, on page 43 is a startling and extraordinary letter to the editor by a former employee of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Peter Michael Ketcham, who worked at NIST from 1997 until 2011.

          In his letter, Mr. Ketcham makes it clear that he did not contribute to NIST’s World Trade Center investigation. In fact, it wasn’t until last August that he began reading the NIST WTC reports and watching documentaries challenging NIST’s findings. The more he investigated, he writes, “the more it became apparent that NIST had reached a predetermined conclusion by ignoring, dismissing, and denying the evidence.”

          Mr. Ketcham closes his stunning 500-word rebuke by calling upon NIST to “blow the whistle on itself now” before awareness of the “disconnect between the NIST WTC reports and logical reasoning” grows exponentially.

          The courageous stand Mr. Ketcham has taken in criticizing the reports issued by his former employer of 14 years is yet another sign of the rapidly increasing skepticism toward the official 9/11 narrative among scientific and technical professionals. No doubt, his emergence will help accelerate the path toward exposing NIST’s WTC reports as false and unscientific.’

          Read Peter Ketcham LTE Only
          Read the Whole Issue of Europhysics News
          Read “15 years later: On the physics of high-rise building collapses”

          To read his letter in full, go to the link.
          Bit damning, wot?

          • Paul Barbara

            Here is the former NIST employee’s letter:

            ‘Thoughts from a Former NIST Employee:

            I was a member of the NIST technical staff during the period 1997-2011. I initially joined the High
            Performance Systems and Services Division and later became a member of what was, at the time, the Mathematical and Computational Sciences Division of the Information Technology Laboratory.
            My fellow NIST employees were among the finest and most intelligent people
            with whom I have ever worked.I did not contribute to the NIST WTC investigation or reports. But in August of this year, I began to read some of those reports. As I then watched several
            documentaries challenging the findings of the NIST investigation, I quickly became furious. First, I was furious with myself. How could I have worked at NIST all those years and not have noticed this before?
            Second, I was furious with NIST. The NIST I knew was intellectually open, non-defensive, and willing to consider competing explanations.
            The more I investigated, the more apparent it became that NIST had reached a predetermined conclusion by ignoring, dismissing, and denying the evidence.
            Among the most egregious examples is the explanation for the collapse of WTC 7 as an elaborate sequence of unlikely events culminating in the almost symmetrical total collapse of a steel-frame building into its own footprint at free-fall acceleration.
            I could list all the reasons why the NIST WTC reports don’t add up, but others have already done so in extensive detail and there is little that I could add.
            What I can do, however, is share some thoughts based on common sense and experience from my fourteen years at NIST.
            First, if NIST truly believes in the veracity of its WTC investigation, then it should openly share all evidence, data, models, computations, and other relevant information unless specific and
            compelling reasons are otherwise provided. For example, would the release of all files and calculations associated with the ANSYS collapse initiation model jeopardize public safety to an extent that outweighs the competing need for accountability?
            Second, in its reports, NIST makes a great show of details leading to collapse initiation and then stops short just when it becomes interesting.
            The remainder of the explanation is a perfunctory statement that total collapse is inevitable and obvious.
            It is easy to see through this tactic as avoidance of inconvenient evidence. In response to any challenges, NIST has provided curt explanations from its Public Affairs Office.
            There were many contributors to the NIST WTC investigation: Why not let them openly answer questions in their own voice with the depth of knowledge and level of detail that follows from the nuts and bolts of their research?
            Lastly, awareness is growing of the disconnect between the NIST WTC reports and logical reasoning.
            The level of interest in “15 years later” is a good example.
            Due to the nature of communication in today’s world, that awareness may increase approximately exponentially.’

            Can’t wait for Clark and Co. to comment on this one!!!

          • Clark

            Paul, thanks for posting that. I was looking for the letters page of Europhysics News but couldn’t find a link for it.

            You know my position because I’ve stated it repeatedly. I think the Twin Towers fell due to inadequate design, construction and maintenance, damage, fire and gravity. I think that NIST is legally gagged from releasing information relating to the strength and fire resistance of the buildings, and that this may be reflected in compensation claims being settled out of court. WTC7 seems more complicated and yes, I’d like to see all the data released.

            It’s also worth reading the previous letter, from José Zorrilla, structural engineer from Uruguay:

            “The structure of the WTC was held by the bracing of the exterior columns by the floor steel joist at each floor level. The weakest point is the union column-steel joist, and although it was fully protected with fire-resistant foam, it is a union without redundancy. Redundancy of joints is a must for live loads.

            – Structural stability is a subject beyond the mechanical strength; a temperature of 800 ° F (measured indirectly by the colour of steel), which does not affect the strength of steel, caused differential deflections that were enough to disconnect the junctions steel joist- pillar. The joints, which were welded for construction speed, were not redundant and failed. When the joints failed, the steel joists fell and the pillars buckled for lack of horizontal bracing”

            The Twin Towers were cheap and nasty. Original on page 45:

            http://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2016/05/epn2016-47-5-6.pdf

          • Clark

            Note also that of the two letters on that page only one is from a structural engineer and it isn’t Mr Ketchum’s. This is disappointing because it means that this development is unlikely to elicit any more information from NIST.

          • Clark

            Ketchum seems to have been some sort of computer specialist, so it isn’t really all that significant that he used to work for NIST. I hope he didn’t quit under circumstances of animosity because it would weaken the case and I’d like to see the data released.

            Shame. I got excited briefly. But it might shake something loose, maybe in next month’s edition.

          • Kempe

            Ketcham is a software engineer who designs apps, he has no engineering or physics background and didn’t work on the 9/11 investigation whilst at NIST. He’s entitled to express his opinion but don’t add any extra importance to it just because he once worked for NIST. He’s just somebody who’s been taken in by one or other of the truther “documentaries”.

            https://www.linkedin.com/in/petermichaelketcham

            I also notice that his employment history ends with him leaving NIST in 2011. He wouldn’t have an axe to grind against his former employers now would he?

          • Paul Barbara

            @ Clark November 24, 2016 at 01:28
            ‘…The Twin Towers were cheap and nasty. Original on page 45….’
            Based on what? Some geezer in Uruguay, who claims expertise? I’ll let A&E sort his ass out; as I’ve said before, I’m no Architect or Engineer.
            Peter Ketcham, however, as a NIST employee for many years, clearly believed he had sufficient knowledge to investigate NIST’s report, and found it a blatant fraud:
            ‘….First, I was furious with myself. How could I have worked at NIST all those years and not have noticed this before?
            Second, I was furious with NIST. The NIST I knew was intellectually open, non-defensive, and willing to consider competing explanations.
            The more I investigated, the more apparent it became that NIST had reached a predetermined conclusion by ignoring, dismissing, and denying the evidence.
            Among the most egregious examples is the explanation for the collapse of WTC 7 as an elaborate sequence of unlikely events culminating in the almost symmetrical total collapse of a steel-frame building into its own footprint at free-fall acceleration.
            I could list all the reasons why the NIST WTC reports don’t add up, but others have already done so in extensive detail and there is little that I could add.
            What I can do, however, is share some thoughts based on common sense and experience from my fourteen years at NIST.
            First, if NIST truly believes in the veracity of its WTC investigation, then it should openly share all evidence, data, models, computations, and other relevant information unless specific and
            compelling reasons are otherwise provided. For example, would the release of all files and calculations associated with the ANSYS collapse initiation model jeopardize public safety to an extent that outweighs the competing need for accountability?
            Second, in its reports, NIST makes a great show of details leading to collapse initiation and then stops short just when it becomes interesting.
            The remainder of the explanation is a perfunctory statement that total collapse is inevitable and obvious.
            It is easy to see through this tactic as avoidance of inconvenient evidence. In response to any challenges, NIST has provided curt explanations from its Public Affairs Office.
            There were many contributors to the NIST WTC investigation: Why not let them openly answer questions in their own voice with the depth of knowledge and level of detail that follows from the nuts and bolts of their research?
            Lastly, awareness is growing of the disconnect between the NIST WTC reports and logical reasoning…..’

            All your talk of things not being able to be investigated because of ‘commercial secrecy’ (not your words exactly, but that’s what you seem to be claiming) makes sod all sense in building collapses killing thousands of people; and nowhere does any government agency even claim that to be the case.

            IF Ketcham’s letter was of no consequence, just the ramblings of an ex-NIST employee who has become a ‘tin hat sporting conspiraloon’, A&E would hardly be making a big thing of it: they have piles and piles of EVIDENCE, and are happy to set up their stalls at State and National A&E conventions; at each one they attend, they pick up more supporters: http://www.ae911truth.org/news/ae911truth-news.html

            I suppose if George W Bush signed a confession that the Towers and Building 7 were brought down by controlled demolition, you would counter with something like: ‘We all know ‘W’ doesn’t know his a** from his elbow; how can we believe his confession?’

          • Kempe

            ” IF Ketcham’s letter was of no consequence, just the ramblings of an ex-NIST employee who has become a ‘tin hat sporting conspiraloon’, A&E would hardly be making a big thing of it: ”

            Oh I think they would. They’ll seize on anything that might add the slightest scrap of credibility to their crackpot theories.

          • Clark

            “…suppose if George W Bush signed a confession that the Towers and Building 7 were brought down by controlled demolition…”

            …then I would immediately suspect that George W Bush had been tortured into a false confession or “made an offer he couldn’t refuse”. It’s completely clear that the Twin Towers underwent gravity-driven collapse just from watching the videos. The obvious way to induce such collapse would be simply to add lots of weight near the top. Attempting to do it with explosives makes no sense at all.

    • Clark

      I’m about 20 minutes in to Kill The Messenger – Sibel Edmond’s battle to expose the truth

      Excellent documentary so far. Thanks for linking it.

  • Paul Barbara

    Conflicts of interest:
    http://www.williambowles.info/911/911_critique.html

    ‘……..The legislation that created the 9/11 Commission attempted to avoid partisan conflicts by balancing party affiliations, and to avoid political appointments by requiring that no appointed member could be ‘an employee of the Federal Government or any State or local government.’ (PL 107-306, Sec. 603(b)(2)).
    However, another requirement for appointment may have led to perceived conflicts of interest for the members by requiring that they have ‘significant depth of experience in such professions as governmental service, law enforcement, the armed services, law, public administration, intelligence gathering, commerce (including aviation matters), and foreign affairs.’ (PL 107-306, Sec. 603(b)(3)).
    Since its inception in the late 1940’s, America’s huge intelligence structure, shrouded in secrecy and classification, has required that those investigating its operations have been part of that network or meet its security vetting criteria. This contradiction, more than issues of partisanship, had the potential to both blind the Commission in its premises and prevent a thorough investigation.
    In the modern era, the National Security State claims that it cannot be independently and publicly investigated without compromising it’s reason to exist, purported national security. The conundrum it creates is that only those with extensive experience inside that military-intelligence-security-law enforcement complex will be given the security clearances necessary to examine it. This creates an automatic potential conflict of interest and diminishes public trust in the authenticity and outcome of the probe.
    The first two people appointed to chair the Commission refused the job. It was apparently a chair no one wanted to sit in. Bush’s choice for chairman, Henry Kissinger, met with controversy due to his past role in covert operations and public distrust. Hours after he assured a delegation representing the families of the victims of 9/11 that he would disclose all of his business contacts, Kissinger resigned from the commission, rather than be forced to reveal potential conflicts that might arise from the still undisclosed clients who use his public relations firm. (Pacifica News Service 4/6/04). These undisclosed clients obviously include some of the most powerful global financial and political institutions. At one point Kissinger & Associates members were considering a merger with the infamous Bank for Credit & Commerce International (BCCI), which was deeply involved in the covert funding of both the Afghan resistance and Contragate (Congressional Report, December 1992, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Kerry-Brown).
    Senator George Mitchell also resigned as vice-chairman after appointment by Congress, citing conflicts with his own law firm. Former New Jersey Governor Tom Keane and former Representative Lee Hamilton from Indiana eventually replaced these two.
    Commissioner and former Senator Max Cleland made many statements about his belief that White House obstructions and the Commission process would fail to find the truth about the events of September 11th. He left predicting a flawed report and a cover-up.
    He stepped down shortly after being appointed by President Bush to head the Export Import Bank, though it is not clear whether he would have been required to (Washington Times, 11/23/03, www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0312/500006.htm). Despite calls to replace him with a victim family member, Senator Daschle chose former Senator Bob Kerry.
    In addition to this, key members appointed to the Commission and the staff they appointed had severe conflicts of interest in relation to the investigation. Commissioner Jamie Gorelick and executive director Philip Zelikow had to recuse themselves to appear as witnesses before the Commission regarding their earlier roles in the events leading up to September 11th. Governor Kean, responding to demands from the families and the public that Zelikow resign due to conflicts, stated that ‘We are aware of these conflicts and Mr. Zelikow has recused himself at points during our investigation, as all of us will have to recuse ourselves at some point,’ thereby conceding that every member of the Commission was sufficiently conflicted to require recusals (Statement to press and families at Second Interim Report).
    Family members also complained that many members had ties to the airline industry. Many had ties to the national security state. Some of the staff appointed to investigate intelligence agencies came out of those agencies themselves.
    This is a review of some of the most troubling potential conflicts of interest among the Commission members and staff:
    Chairman Thomas Kean
    Served on the board of Delta Hess, a merger of Delta Oil and Amerada Hess
    Serves on the board of the National Endowment for Democracy, which has served as a cover to the Central Intelligence Agency’s covert operations abroad.
    Allen Weinstein, who helped draft the legislation establishing NED, was quite candid when he said in 1991: “A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA.” In effect, the CIA has been laundering money through NED∑From 1994 to 1996, NED awarded 15 grants, totaling more than $2,500,000, to the American Institute for Free Labor Development, an organization used by the CIA for decades to subvert progressive labor unions…NED successfully manipulated elections in Nicaragua in 1990 and Mongolia in 1996 and helped to overthrow democratically elected governments in Bulgaria in 1990 and Albania in 1991 and 1992. In Haiti in the late l990s, NED was busy working on behalf of right wing groups who were united in their opposition to former president Jean-Bertrand Aristide and his progressive ideology. NED has made its weight felt in the electoral-political process in numerous other countries∑ The Endowment played an important role in the Iran-Contra affair of the 1980s, funding key components of Oliver North’s shadowy “Project Democracy” network, which privatized US foreign policy, waged war, and ran arms and drugs. (Excerpted from Rogue State, ‘Trojan Horse: The NED’, William Blum, Common Courage Press, 2000).
    NED took over the CIA’s role in engineering the control of foreign governments worldwide, but most noticeably in Yugoslavia, Haiti, Nicaragua and Cuba. The NED financed, at $250,000.00, the Cuban-American National Foundation (CANF), which in turn financed Luis Posada Carriles, ‘one of the most prolific and pitiless terrorists of modern times,’ responsible for blowing up a Cuban airliner (73 people killed) and more recently, the 1997 bombing of Havana hotels. (www.zmag.org/Zmag/articles/oct01berkowitz.htm; Covert Action Information Bulletin (CAIB) #33 ˆ Intervention in the Nicaraguan Election, by William Robinson and David MacMichael ˆ p. 32-33; CAIB #34 ‘Nicaraguan ŒElectoral Coup,” p. 31-36; CAIB #39 ‘NED, CIA, & the Orwellian Democracy Project’ by Holly Sklar and Chip Berlet, p.10-13, New York Times, 7/13/98; ‘Trojan Horse’ members.aol.com/superogue/ned.htm).
    Not mentioned on Kean’s official Commission biography was his role as director of Amerada Hess Corporation, which in 1998 formed joint venture Delta-Hess, with Delta Oil, in part owned by Khalid bin Mahfouz. Mahfouz inherited a controlling interest in the National Commercial Bank of Saudi Arabia, the country’s largest bank, and was a director with 20% interest in BCCI, the now defunct financial conglomerate involved in money laundering, bribery, support of terrorism, arms trafficking and other crimes. Mahfouz paid $225 million to escape prosecution for his role in the BCCI scandal. Mahfouz also inherited the assets of the Saudi bin Laden group when Salem bin Laden died in a 1988 plane crash. These included an interest in Arbusto Energy, a Houston, Texas oil company founded by George W. Bush. Bin Mahfouz’s interests were managed in part by James R. Bath, a close friend of Bush, who served in the Texas ANG with him. Bath’s name was inexplicably redacted in Bush’s Air National Guard military medical reports. ( www.worldhistory.com/wiki/K/Khalid-bin-Mahfuz.htm).
    One critical conflict arises in the 1998 Senate testimony of then CIA director R. James Woolsey, Jr., who testified that Mahfouz’s younger sister married Osama bin Laden. Thus, the prime suspect in the 9-11 murders is the brother-in-law of Kean’s business partner. (Senate Judiciary Committee ˆ FNS ˆ Sept. 3, 1998)
    Vice Chairman Lee Hamilton
    Lee H. Hamilton had no problem getting a security clearance for his work on the Commission, having served on the House Intelligence Committee, Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and the Council on Foreign Relations. He has a track record in leading investigations that have limited the scope of the inquiry and failed to hold accountable key government officials who broke the law. For example, he chaired the Congressional panel that looked into the Iran-Contra scandal, and then-Senator Dick Cheney was Vice Chair. Hamilton explained to PBS Frontline that he didn’t a full and open investigation into Contragate would be ‘good for the country.’
    Commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste
    Works at the international law firm of Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw, is a former New York prosecutor and was chief of the Watergate Task Force of the Watergate Special Prosecutor’s Office (1973-75). Watergate was another massive scandal that was never fully investigated or revealed. He was also chief counsel of the Senate Whitewater Committee, and served as attorney for CIA-linked and drug smuggler and pilot Barry Seal. (The Washington Monthly ˆ 06/09/97).
    Commissioner Jamie Gorelick
    Serves on the President’s Review of Intelligence and the CIA’s National Security Advisory Panel. Also served as counsel for the Department of Defense. Jamie S. Gorelick works with the law firm Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering, and is a former Justice Department lawyer. She also works for United Technologies Corporation, a major defense contractor. She sits on the Council on Foreign Relations, and the board of Schlumberger Ltd., a company with a history related to the Bay of Pigs covert operations against Cuba. Her role in support of the division between intelligence and law enforcement, referred to as ‘The Wall’ that allegedly prevented effective intelligence sharing in relation to the terrorist plot, led to yet another unrevealed connection of a Commission member to the events of 9/11, and she was forced to recuse her role to testify to her own Commission.
    Commissioner James R. Thompson
    Works at the law firm Winston & Stawn, which represents General Electric, Philip Morris and American Airlines. He is a former Chicago prosecutor. Families noted the potential conflict with an airline company some were suing for negligence because of the attacks.
    Commissioner Fred F. Fielding
    Served as a counsel to several Presidents, including Nixon prior to his resignation, Reagan and Vice President Bush. He is a member of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. He was recently named in a university study as a prime candidate for ‘Deep Throat’ in the Watergate scandal.
    Executive Director, Phillip Zelikow
    Besides having served in the Navy and on the National Security Council, Zelikow is also a member of the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board and was executive director of the Markle Foundation Task Force on National Security in the Information Age. (See: www.markle.org/markle_programs/index.php and http://www.9-11commission.gov biographies)
    Zelikow is also the director of the Miller Center of Public Affairs at the University of Virginia, which drew up plans to limit free press access at White House briefings out of ‘respect for the President.’ The Miller Center has established a reputation for being a repository for Presidential history. Zelikow, and his fellow 9-11 Commission staff consultant, Ernest May, are the co-editors of ‘The Kennedy Tapes,’ based on their own transcriptions of Oval Office audio tapes from the Kennedy administration.
    Former JFK Presidential Librarian Sheldon Stern compared the transcripts to the original recordings at the library and questioned the Miller Center’s translations, which are supposed to be verbatim and not open to interpretation. Stern said no student or scholar could rely on Zelikow’s work. (‘What JKF Really Said’, Atlantic Monthly, May 2000 ˆ theatlantic.com/issues/2000/05/stern.htm and a March 15, 2004 follow-up hnn.us/articles/3934.html).
    Only Zelikow and Commissioner Gorelick were permitted to read the full Presidential Daily Briefings (PDBs), and summarize them for the other Commissioners. When asked why we should trust Zelikow’s summary of the PDBs when we know he botched the JFK Oval Office transcripts, Commissioner Gorelick said that the Chairman and Vice Chair would also read the PDBs, so they weren’t depending upon Zelikow’s version alone.
    In addition, the President and Vice President’s testimony before the commission was not recorded or transcribed, with only notes, allowed to be taken by Zelikow.
    What really disturbed the Family Steering Commission were the revelations of his role on the Bush-Chaney Transition Team, to establish their National Security Council, which was not mentioned in his Commission biography. He sat in on warnings about imminent terrorist attacks from Clinton’s National Security Director Sandy Berger as well as the incoming White House advisor on terrorism, Richard Clark in the months before 9/11, which went seemingly unheeded by Rice and the President. These contacts forced him to become a witness before the 9/11 Commission inquiry.
    Zelikow’s association with the President’s National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, with whom he wrote a book (‘Germany Unified and Europe Transformed.’) was an additional concern. But public calls for his resignation because of these blatant conflicts of interest went unheeded.
    Senior Counsel, Dietrich Snell
    ‘When Dietrich Snell first felt his office shake on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001 ˜ the reverberations from the first jetliner crashing into the World Trade Center down the street ˜ he ran into the office of his boss, the attorney general of New York, Eliot L. Spitzer. Mr. Snell, who was a federal prosecutor in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing case, had a feeling that this was no accident. Gazing through the windows at the burning tower, Mr. Snell told his co-workers, Mr. Spitzer said, that one of the defendants convicted in a terrorism case had warned as he was being led away: ŒWe’re going to get them. We’re going to get them.” (Terrorist told of plan to crash into CIA’s HQ, Greg B. Smith, NY Daily News, 9/25/01, 9/11 Commission Staff List).
    The rest of the staff of the Commission follows a similar pattern of potential conflicts. Half of the people hired have ties to Navy service or intelligence agencies. Many have ties to Wilmer, Cutler and Pickering, Jamie Gorelick’s firm. This underscores the paradox that only those already inside the system are qualified to investigate it…..’

    Please recite after me: ‘I believe in Father Christmas; that the earth is flat, that the tooth fairy is real, that storks bring babies into the world via a cloth sling they carry in their beaks, that politicians don’t lie, that the British Empire and US Empire were and are respectively benevolent constructs, that ‘False Flag’ attacks are purely the result of the overactive, feverish, paranoid minds of ‘Conspiracy Theorists’, and that Governments, Corporations and Banksters have the good of the public at the heart of their endeavours, and sophistry is the highest pinnacle one can aspire to in any discussion – so help me, Lucifer’.

    • Clark

      A good piece by William Bowles – I was subscribed to his newsletter through an e-mail address I lost access to – but you added the last paragraph yourself, I assume, to ridicule those who reject demolition of the Twin Towers. You really don’t want any moderate support, do you?

  • fwl

    I have had a surreal thought.

    What if one were a billionaire committed to libertarian deconstruction of as much of the government as possible and had decided that in the free market one can look after ones own security and intelligence. A latter day East India Co view of society if you like. Would one then consider promoting an insider story. That would take guts and audacity. But that seems to be around. Such a revelation would cause a real deep state rift, but if done could undermine many state institutions.

    Russia might like that.

    Many here would like like that seeing it as a neutering of the military apparatus but what then takes its place? Warlords? New private armies and mercenaries.

    Bonkers?

    Idle nightmare?

    I don’t know. Just wondering.

    • fwl

      ie be careful what you wish for. If there were a people’s investigation which gave you the truth officially as you see it (I don’t know what happened) then you would have to ask why? Where is it leading?

      • Deepgreenpuddock

        Surreal thoughts indeed.
        Trump is essentially a libertarian and a libertine and narcissistically disordered personality. Remarkably it was said of Tony Blair that he was more suited to have been the Chief Executive of a very large multinational. Wessentialy he is a businessman -not quite in the same mould as Trump but with the same underlying attitudes-A Mr Fixit. who believes everything is negotiable with ‘deals’.
        Trump is also a few other things and i can see him being much entertained by and fantasising about the idea of the swashbuckling ‘entrepreneurial’ spirit of the 17th and 18th centuries. But underneath all that is a personal, moral and intellectual coward, and an odious bully, so the fantasy would remain a fantasy I suspect.
        All very entertaining. But we have had ’empires’ over most of the world for the since then.
        Essentially the Russian empire, the European/middle eastern ’empires’ -Hapsburg and Ottoman and even the Asian empires-centred around China and India, which are large enough to qualify as empires in themselves. So the organisation of the world is certainly evolving but Imperialism has been a constant feature for many hundreds of years and it seems unlikely that something similar (but different/evolved) won’t persist.
        in addition is the scale of modern weaponry-which lends itself to ’empire’.i.e. the use of extreme weapons to exercise control over distant places.
        I can’t see modern nuclear type weaponry being compatible with warlords etc since warlords do not have the capacity to develop the scale and control the infrastructure required for this kind of weaponry, and besides, being rather unaccountable, would probably blow the world to oblivion in a trice if such people ever managed to gain control over these weapons.

        • lysias

          I am happy that it will be Trump and not the neocon warmonger Hillary who will have power over the U.S. nuclear arsenal. Hillary was and is a psychopath. “We came, we saw, he died, (cackle).” She was probably so gleeful over Kaddafi’s awful death because she thought it would advance her presidential ambitions, but what does that say about her?

          • Paul Barbara

            @ lysias November 24, 2016 at 21:26
            Right on, Lysias. But, you do not seem to know just how rotten the Luciferian witch is; read Cathy O’Brien’s ‘Access Denied: For Reasons of National Security’ (please, if you really want to know the depth of depravity of our ‘Leaders’, read it).
            I live in Blighty, but most of my (oblivious) family live Stateside.

          • John Goss

            Me too Lysias. Though I don’t trust him. I don’t like his racist and anti-environmental policies. On that Clark is right. However Trump could see from the start that the twin towers could not have been brought down by aircraft (alone). I sincerely hope he does call for an investigation into the nonsense that NIST has put out as science.

            I am surprised that after all the real science presented to Clark on this blog alone he simply ignores it and still clings to the naive view he holds. “What, I believe, would have a devastating impact would be an official “finding” that the Twin Towers were brought down by explosives. This would make no sense scientifically and would contradict the vast majority in the engineering professions and in physical academia.”

            I know of no proper academic or scientist, architect or engineer, who would stake his or her reputation that aluminium can cut through steel, or that floors would collapse onto other floors pancaking them in without help from detonated explosives of one kind or another. But there are many who question, and rightly question, the official version conducted by NIST and also question the many errors of omission in NIST’s investigations. NIST’s experts took the cash and fiddled to the tune of the punters. It’s as simple as that.

      • Clark

        Fwl, I’ve been thinking along similar lines. However Mr Ketcham’s letter to Europhysics News probably isn’t a promoted insider story because it isn’t nearly good enough; he isn’t a structural engineer and he didn’t contribute to the building investigations.

        If, under the new presidency, we see some official pronouncement that includes the “admission” that the Twin Towers were brought down by explosives, be very, very afraid, because the next step will be cultural revolution, the burning of books, the takeover of academia and education; the whole nightmare of power subjugating freedom of speech and thought. My rejection of the theory of demolition of the Twin Towers has noting to do with politics and everything to do with physical dynamics and lack of evidence.

        Deepgreenpuddock is right that nuclear weapons wouldn’t be developed by warlords, but unfortunately those nuclear arsenals have already been developed.

        • Paul Barbara

          I must admit, Clark, that Ketcham isn’t in your league; of course, he never claimed to be a structural engineer. But he would be extremely foolish to question those who are, unless he was convinced by his own and over 2,500 Architects and Engineers.
          You may say they are the minority – but the majority choose to hold there peace, not wishing to risk there jobs by joining the Truthers.
          Is there a comparable group of Architects and Engineers who have formed a group and who SUPPORT the Government narrative? Just because they don’t speak out, doesn’t mean they’ve been snowed by the ridiculous pack of lies that is the ‘Official Conspiracy Theory’.

          • Clark

            Paul, pardon me, but I don’t claim to be a structural engineer. I’m merely familiar enough with basic mechanics to know that buildings can collapse, that explosives are as good as useless for simulating a progressive collapse, and I have sufficient reasoning ability to determine that every piece of “evidence” I’ve been shown purporting to support demolition of the Twin Towers is either over-interpreted, exaggerated or outright fabricated. And I DON’T like being taken for an idiot.

            There are plenty in the scientific, engineering and academic communities whose jobs are not dependent on supposed compliance. There are hundreds of thousands who have retired. There are countless students who could shoot to fame. And there are millions outside the US.

            Collapse of the Twin Towers due to damage and fire is no more “the US government narrative” than is that the Titanic sank due to hull breach; both are just what happened. Explosive demolition of the Twin Towers is just something some people made up, which a load of other people eagerly repeat and embellish without bothering to check whether the evidence is valid. If I say that the Loch Ness Monster doesn’t exist, am I supporting, say, the Italian government’s Official Conspiracy Theory?

            Actually it’s YOU that’s supporting the US government position because you refuse to acknowledge the weaknesses of the Twin Towers.

        • Deepgreenpuddock

          Clark- That is quite an interesting comment. I think you are right that some revelation on 9/11 being some kind of inside job- would have a devastating impact, and I suspect you may be right re its consequences, the problem being that it would implicate such stalwarts of society (both individuals and organisations), that it would signify the breakdown of all normal ways of thinking and interacting with each other.
          It also suggest that we are all (at an individual level) on some kind of psychological knife edge(blade runners) teetering between sanity,rationality (and implicit compliance) and ‘insanity’ and anarchy. The irony is that there is a constant tension between these two types of thinking, and why that should be is quite difficult to understand , but it is a recurring and persistent theme running through literature and art.
          There is a further problem, in that the alternative explanation of 9/11- uses reasoning and logic and evidence to try to undermine the ‘sane’ explanation. in other words it is also ‘sane’ or at least uses the same faculties as the conventional view.
          The question i am interested in is whether our psychological disposition determines our understanding of the problem, Do you and I, having intuited the consequences of an alternative conspiracy cause , suppress the possibility, and sought out the evidence to protect us from the insanity and monstrous consequences of an alternative explanation.

          In some sense, we are protecting ourselves from chaotic ‘non-explanations’ in the same way that the conspiracy theorisers are trying top create a logic to protect themselves from the absence of agency or the surrender to chaos.
          In other words-seeking out a form of ‘sanity’ which restores ‘sanity’ to the act of insanity that a 9/11 conspiracy would be. Is this competing forms of denial i.e the same thing in both those in favour of the conventional explanation and those against.
          We are both denying chaotic factors-or more precisely, the chaotic interaction of factors that created this disaster. Yes there were Saudis involved yes they were connected in some way to prominent people, yes there were jubilant Israelis dancing in the streets of New York. But these are inferred as causal and consequential ,or instrumental, when they may be no more significant than what i was doing on the day of 9/11/( cleaning out the ferret enclosure with my son, as it happens).
          As i have said already it seems vanishingly unlikely that the collapse was planned in some way. and I am rather attracted to your explanation-the ‘chaotic’ /unseen/unexpected coming together of many circumstances such as poor building standards, faulty or inadequate structural calculations,faulty estimates of risk,malice, profit taking/exploitation on the back of the disaster by some operators.
          That speaks very much to my personal experience of fuck -up being the result of the coming together of two or more relatively random events. God knows i have fucked up on numerous occasions and these have been ALWAYS because of the additive or compounding effect of two or more unforeseen factors or misjudgements.

          • Clark

            Deepgreenpuddock, probably most of what follows is of limited relevance to your own position; mostly, I’m restating it for clarity and to clear ambiguity.

            I have only one reason to believe that 9/11 wasn’t exactly Bush and his cronies, and that is that the perpetrators seem to have been Saudis with support from Saudi Arabia. Had it been a false flag by the Bush administration they’d have pinned it on Iraqis, and kept their partners the Saudis squeaky clean. Zionists, on the other hand, might well have “accidentally” mislaid or ignored intelligence about it but, I strongly suspect, would never have risked directly facilitating it in case clues emerged, thereby threatening US support for Israel.

            What, I believe, would have a devastating impact would be an official “finding” that the Twin Towers were brought down by explosives. This would make no sense scientifically and would contradict the vast majority in the engineering professions and in physical academia. The reason I fear it might happen is that Trump’s support came from the unemployed and impoverished workers of the scaled-back industries of the “Rust Belt”, and his deputy Pence is backed by the Koch brothers coal money whose profits have been slashed due to CO2 emissions restrictions. The US Right has always harboured a strand of anti-science such as the religious creationists, but push has now come to shove, and Trump is hoping to lead the US into breaking the Paris climate agreement. If the cabal behind Trump have decided to smash the scientific community and indeed science itself, raising populist rabbles against government bodies like NIST and FEMA would be a good place to start; government agencies attract more animosity from the public than the universities do, and they look less like a “soft target”.

            The Twin Towers demolition theorists merely create an impression of using evidence and logic. I’ve been following their leads for months now, and not one of their assertions has stood up to scrutiny. I know they deride my findings as partisan, but it’s mere bluster. “Free fall”? Observably false. “Into their own footprints”? Observably false. “Towers very strong”? Laughable. “Ejections of massive beams”? Observably false. “Explosions”? Yes, but the timing’s all wrong. “Hundreds of boxes with the part numbers of special fuses for controlled demolition”? Normal mains electric components from an ordinary electrical wholesaler. And on and on and on. The “case” for demolition of the Towers so far seems entirely fabricated but I continue to check new claims, which is very magnanimous of me considering how many wild goose chases I’ve been sent on.

            The physical evidence for demolition of WTC7 does have some credibility, but its relevance remains entirely speculative.

            I have more to write about the tension between chaos and structure, but insufficient time right now.

          • lysias

            People are unwilling to admit to themselves that conspiracies within the U.S. government were responsible for such things as Pearl Harbor, the JFK assassination, the Vietnam War, the attack on the USS Liberty, and 9/11 because recognizing that requires such a radical rethinking of how we have been taught to think.

          • Paul Barbara

            So basically you are pushing the idea that ‘ignorance is bliss’?
            Don’t try to get to the truth, because the sky may fall in? Well. let the poxy sky fall in, if that is what it takes.
            Bowing down to the NWO Luciferian scumbags is far worse than having the ‘sky fall in’, which incidentally WILL occur, on the ‘Day of Judgement’ (IMO).

          • Paul Barbara

            @ Clark November 24, 2016 at 20:35
            ‘….I have only one reason to believe that 9/11 wasn’t exactly Bush and his cronies, and that is that the perpetrators seem to have been Saudis with support from Saudi Arabia. Had it been a false flag by the Bush administration they’d have pinned it on Iraqis, and kept their partners the Saudis squeaky clean. Zionists, on the other hand, might well have “accidentally” mislaid or ignored intelligence about it but, I strongly suspect, would never have risked directly facilitating it in case clues emerged, thereby threatening US support for Israel…..’
            Difficult to believe you actually commented that! That is your ‘ONLY REASON’?
            So why waffle on about all your ‘scientific reasons’?

            As far as ‘if’ Zionists were involved (and I am not here sugesting they were), why on earth should they be worried?
            Like the Mafia, they have a ‘Blood Brotherhood’ with the US ‘Shadow Government’; check out Israel’s muirderous attack on the USS Liberty (and the US ‘response’).

          • Clark

            “So why waffle on about all your ‘scientific reasons’?”

            You’re confusing whodunit with what was done.

            USS Liberty? No comparison: (1) USS Liberty was a military target during a war, (2) Wasn’t it the Six Day War that initiated US military aid to Israel? So there was less to jeopardise at that time, (3) New York has a large US Jewish community and Zionists wouldn’t act to decrease their support for Israel.

          • lysias

            I just read Joan Mellen’s new book Faustian Bargains: Lyndon Johnson and Mac Wallace in the Robber Baron Culture of Texas. In it, she takes seriously Peter Hounam’s theory in his book Operation Cyanide that the attack on the Liberty happened as a result of a conspiracy between LBJ and the Israelis. It was supposed to furnish a pretext for a nuclear U.S. attack on Egypt, who was going to be blamed for the attack until the survival of the ship made that plan impossible. Mellen furnishes a lot of evidence in addition to that already adduced by Hounam many years ago.

            Mellen is a well-known writer on the JFK assassination. I learned about her new book from Jefferson Morley on his site jfkfacts.org. Morley, a former Washington Post writer, is also a well-known author. So Mellen’s book may be seen by a lot of people, whether or not the MSM dare to review it.

            I think LBJ’s reputation is about to suffer a big nose dive.

    • lysias

      Deep state rift, but a great advance in the new president’s powers, as it would thoroughly discredit his predecessors.

      Might invite the same response as to JFK, but, if the deep state did that, it would really thoroughly discredit itself.

      • Paul Barbara

        ‘…Might invite the same response as to JFK, but, if the deep state did that, it would really thoroughly discredit itself….’

        That would assume anyone knew about it; MSM being what it is, they will print what they are told to print
        .And not enough people, though increasing, get their ‘News’ from the alternative ‘Samizdat’ alternative media.

        • lysias

          The MSM is now, after this last election, discredited in the eyes of a majority of the American public.

        • Paul Barbara

          I don’t follow this – so what’s wrong if it is a Sun report? They report that the event occurred – their spin is neither here nor there; important thing, surely, is publicity the event occurred?
          Maybe I’ve missed something – if so, please enlighten me.

          • John Goss

            If you lived here Paul I’m sure you would understand. The Sun was one of the seediest of tabloids. Owned by Murdoch its reputation as a serious source of news was besmirched by nasty one word front-page headlines like “GOTCHA” when the General Belgrano was sunk. It is aimed at a cross-section of largely undiscerning readers.

        • Kempe

          Well it would be nice if you were correct and I could look forward to early retirement on a fat civil service pension but unfortunately the truth is, as always, rather different.

  • Paul Barbara

    @ Deepgreenpuddock November 24, 2016 at 13:58
    9/11 cannot be seen as a ‘one off’; ‘False Flag’ attacks (or hoaxes) have been used for centuries to give a ‘casus belli’, or as a facilitator for repressive legislation, or to increase government powers over the public:
    ’53 Admitted False Flag Attacks’: http://www.globalresearch.ca/53-admitted-false-flag-attacks/5432931

    And that’s just ‘admitted’ ones! Playing the ostrich, or the three wise monkey scenario, just invites more ‘False Flags’. Why should the PTB fix their act, when it ain’t broke, and the gullible peasants fall for their blarney time and time again, no matter how absurd?

    • Deepgreenpuddock

      There are unquestionably tricks and subterfuges and long ago when ships were made of oak, these chancers, no doubt ran up a phoney flag to get within striking distance.
      Sometimes i dare say it worked, and surely, quite often the sailors who were the target of this derring do/duplicity, dropped their trousers and showed their bums to the enemy, before speeding off in the opposite direction.

      An oft cited and famous ‘false flag’ incident is the Gulf of Tonkin incident but my understanding of this is that a virtually non-existent confrontation between a heavily armoured (then) modern large ship and some small boats carrying the then equivalent of pea shooters was ‘spun’ more or less in the same/similar way that the dodgy dossier was for Blair’s Iraq, into political leverage, that empowered the political leader(s) to enable the deployment of the military for some unstated ideological or strategic or economic benefit.

      It was undoubtedly duplicitous and undoubtedly ‘false’ but at the same time I am surprised that anyone should be surprised by such behaviour. It is essentially a very common modus operandi that is used in just about all human activity systems where something is competed over.
      Manipulation of ‘rules’ , lies which are not identifiable readily as falsehoods. (OK sometime it leaks out)

      There are countless variations of this basic process and it exists at virtually all levels of society. Children do it, and adults do it with greater degrees of sophistication. It is vindictive and immoral but then people are vindictive and immoral, and compete in their immorality and dishonesty.

      The Gulf of Tonkin incident was actually a pinprick to the mighty US navy. It may even not have really existed other than as a sailor ‘seeing’ someone with a gun on a boat that had come from somewhere in North Vietnam and triggering the idea of a confrontation.
      Anyone who genuinely followed the march to war against Saddam knew it was all phoney.
      It was actually an unbelievably inept pice of subterfuge and duplicity, and it is still a wonder that Blair pulled it off. But the fact that he did pull it off is a testament to the depth of malignant self-interest that exists within the nexus of politics and ‘civil service’.Do you think that Gordon Brown did not do a calculus of the benefits to him and his career, of staying schtum and ‘resigning’. He could not have been deluded about the real parameters of theBlair’s duplicity.
      Brown is in many ways the complete figure of dishonesty and self-delusion-a bastion of moral rectitude, but a conniving self -serving self-righteous and odious hypocrite of Greek tragedy proportions.
      It is truly corrupt but that is the default condition and duplicity is the default mode of effective people in these organisations. The truth is that countless people go along with this because their ‘boss’ tells them, and their income and status and social position are dependent on supporting the status quo, even if this is without conviction. One suspects that whistleblowing is sometimes a last resort of a ‘player’ who has run out of options.

      However the default consequence of all this is various forms of deniai, and ‘cover up’-e.g. loss of documents records/ falsifications to deflect blame, and any number of prevarications and obfuscations.
      Some people are quite easily ‘sold’ some dishonest and then actually absorb it into their very being and believe nonsense with absolute conviction-so intertwined is self interest with what they believe.
      How on earth would religions survive, if there was no capacity for delusion in the human mind?
      The transformation from someone who is the victim of this human process, to someone who has transcended these common delusions and has developed an awareness of their relationship to this process is on a personal journey from childhood to some degree of awareness (always partial regardless of the person) that we are the victims of a mind that has evolved in ways which are not meant to reveal realities but t survive in complex conditions with varying degrees of power. All is a game of power and even some of the most effective users of power are themselves victims of their delusions.
      i suppose my point is that one of the characteristics of 9/!1 that suggest that it is not a ‘false flag’ is the very fact that the main thrust of the event-the falling of the towers and the death of thousands actually happened . A false flag is a ruse. It would have been a false flag if there had been no deaths, if the harm was illusory, or insignificant. At a push – a false flag would have been (say) a hi-jack that clipped a building and crashed with some fatalities. That would have triggered as big a response as the actual 9/11 incident, or been sufficient reason to mount the political and legislative action that was connived at for whatever purpose. There is in my own mind, the remote possibility, that it was an attempted false flag that went seriously wrong.

      But mostly I think it was a major intelligence cock-up, and a cover up. Behind the story will almost certainly be a very human picture of failed duties, forgettings, unanswered emails and letters and unreturned telephone calls, laziness, improper taking of recreational substances, misunderstandings, ambiguities, poor language use, petty lies, all coinciding at a slightly surreal confluence of serendipity.

      The cover-up is in many peoples’ interests- more than the number of people with an interest in revealing anything. The truth will emerge when there is nothing left to lose from the fullest possible(which may actually be incomplete for ever) knowledge -in other words when most of the people now alive are dead.

  • C j.

    I only looked at this section out of sheer curiosity, seeing Mr. Murray’s website on a google search…
    Anyhow, the last post regarding the Investigatory Powers Act becoming law, if this is the case, is for me, and maybe many others, a cause for some concern :
    I have a family, who have a life, I only watch any news these days very rarely, and avoid itn and the Bbc if I can help it, the news that is.
    I have genuinely already been on the receiving end of the kind of surveillance you would not believe and too many experiences to divulge in such a short amount of words.
    Be careful everyone, be vigilant, be mindful of what you comment on online or otherwise.
    Do not underestimate the powers that be and how much they can control and possibly undermine even the minutiae of your daily life.
    If anyone was party to the comments made by the three security services, 5 6 and the listening service then be aware of the reverse psych employed back in the select committee review in 2013.
    They said they didn’t torture, lie, shoot or kill, or their employees didn’t get up to anything outside of the laws they abide by.
    You should be very aware that they are Not legally liable for their words, actions or deeds, so realise what a Pandora’s box has been already open for many years prior to the above law being passed on 19.11.16.
    I cannot elaborate the details as there will be ramifications for my family were I to mention these.
    But nothing in your life, whatever it is if you do have their interest is sacrosanct, truly.
    You just would not believe me anyway if told you, I wouldn’t.

  • Paul Barbara

    ‘What REALLY sent it down? Shock report reveals 9/11 tower DID NOT collapse because of fire’:
    http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/736223/9-11-tower-Building-7-collapse-fire-conspiracy

    ‘…….The report, by a group of top engineers from the University of Alaska, insists the flames could not have brought the tower down.

    Dr J Leroy Hulsey revealed the team’s boss findings at the Justice In Focus Symposium in New York.

    He said: “It is our preliminary conclusions based upon our work to date that fire did not produce the failure at this particular building.”

    The findings will add fuel to conspiracy theories which suggest the twin towers and WTC 7 were blown up.

    Some have even blamed the US Government which they say wanted to provide the grounds for military strikes in the Middle East……’

    ‘..The report, by a group of top engineers from the University of Alaska…’ – get that, Clark & Co.? Not some bat-sh*t crazies with dodgy diplomas (or none at all).

    What a surprise, being reported fairly reasonably by the ‘Express’. Truly, ‘wonders never cease’!

      • Paul Barbara

        I got a few comments in on the Express article, but the following is still ‘awaiting moderation’:
        ‘ ‘Fraid you’re wrong there, colinshorey1. Not only were the buildings insured, by the new owner, Larry Silverstein, who signed the Lease on 9/11 on 24th July 2001, six weeks before the attacks. And he had two clauses inserted in the insurance: that they would be insured against ‘Terrorist Attacks’ and that if they collapsed, he had the right to rebuild on the site.’

        colinshorey1 had stated the WTC was uninsurable. I suspect the trigger mechanism to send it to moderation was ‘Larry Silvverstein’, in which case they must have put his name in as a spam filter; wonder why?

        • Clark

          Paul, your comment might have been blocked because you wrote:

          “…Larry Silverstein, who signed the Lease on 9/11 on 24th July 2001…”

          I know it’s just a typo, but taken literally it seems to mean that Silverstein paid for the 9/11 attacks.

  • Clark

    Kempe, you may find this interesting.

    John Goss, you asked me to find structural engineers who support the damage-and-fire explanation. Many are quoted on the 9/11 Engineers Blogspot linked below. Your assertion that structural engineers have not discussed the responses of the buildings is disproved.

    Paul Barbara, you asked about non-disclosure of architectural data.

    Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl is an Iranian-American academic, structural engineer and professor at University of California, Berkeley.

    As Mr. Astaneh-Asl examined the construction documents, however, he was horrified by aspects of the design. He says the structure essentially threw out the rule book on skyscraper construction. “This building was so strange, and so many violations of practice and code were introduced,” he says.

    – The design contains at least 10 unusual elements, he says. For example, rather than using a traditional skeletal framework of vertical and horizontal columns, the twin towers relied partly on a “bearing wall” system in which the floors and walls worked together to support each other, says Mr. Astaneh-Asl. That system allowed designers to use thinner steel in the buildings’ columns and exterior than would be used in a traditional design, he says, adding that in some places the steel in columns was only one-quarter of an inch thick. And he says the designers used stronger steel (measured in what is known as “yield strength”) in some columns than is allowed by any U.S. building codes, and that such steel is less flexible — and therefore more brittle — than the type traditionally used in such buildings.

    – As a result of such design elements, he argues, when the two airliners smashed into the upper floors of the towers, both planes plunged all the way in, wings and all

    On the FEMA investigation:

    Mr. Astaneh-Asl was initially asked to participate, but he says he was troubled that team members were all required to sign a nondisclosure form promising to keep certain details of the investigation, including the buildings’ architectural plans, to themselves. Mr. Astaneh-Asl’s says he felt the agreement violated his academic freedom, and so he resigned from the team before its investigation got under way.

    – (The leader of that investigation, W. Gene Corley, says he believes the wording of the nondisclosure agreement would not have stopped any participant in the investigation from publishing academic papers about the structures. “It essentially said that we would not use information we obtained there to be used in a lawsuit against the owners and designers of the building,” says Mr. Corley, who is senior vice president of the CTL Group, in Skokie, Ill.)

    Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl inspecting steel from the Twin Towers:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyRw7gEKpBQ

  • Clark

    Charles Thornton, of the NIST Oversight Committee:

    Thornton – “The floor system in the World Trade Center was never used before on a tall building and will never, ever be used again; it was open-web bar joists, it was the same thing you’d see in a high school gymnasium, or a Wal-Mart or a Lowes or a big-box retail, and they’re almost impossible to fireproof because you can’t get the fireproofing to stick. But in addition the building was so light that the dynamic studies done back in the ’60s showed that the building would have been unoccupiable”,

    Interviewer – “If you go back to the early footage of the Trade Center, early interviews, they were the strongest steel structures mankind had ever known, they were, like, a triumph for engineering […]”

    Thornton – “The people who designed it and the Port Authority, their public relations and publicity said what you just said but in fact, in plain English, the buildings were a piece of ShiT. Horrible, they were horrible buildings […] and it would never have been allowed if the Port Authority had to comply with the New York city Building Department, they didn’t have to, they were immune […] They designed a building that was cheap, flimsy and essentially a piece of crap. It was a horrible building, and anybody that died in it should be suing everybody, but everybody’s whitewashed it. FEMA whitewashed it, ASCE whitewashed it, nobody wants to tell the truth about the fact that the building was just a bad building”.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2jAgp1slFM

    Just capitalism in action, folks; why expect anything else?

  • Clark

    And before anyone starts accusing me of “supporting the official story”, since when has the “official story” been that thousands died because the buildings were “a piece of shit”?

  • Clark

    Node:

    http://facilityexecutive.com/2008/08/one-month-in-new-building-codes-in-the-big-apple/

    “For the construction industry, it has been one month since officials said goodbye to the old New York codes. The 2008 New York City Codes went into effect across all five boroughs on July 1, 2008”

    Kempe! You didn’t post a link to anything like this, therefore you are an Evil Agent! I don’t know if you’re an agent for covering up demolition or for covering up poor construction standards, but you’re “hostile” to Node’s point of view and therefore you must be evil, as Paul Barbara has confirmed. Rest assured that we’re coming to get you. You’re going to be tried and then RobG is going to shoot you, but only with a lead bullet so it’ll bounce off; John Goss has proved that.

    • Node

      Every time you post shite like this, you confirm my point (that there have been no significant changes in building regulations as a result of 9/11) and cast doubt upon your own integrity.

      The purpose of the 2008 New York City Codes was to standardise building codes throughout the USA, they had been planned since 2003 (5 years before NIST’s recommendations). They are totally irrelevant to the events of 9/11, AS THE REPORT YOU LINKED TO MAKES CLEAR.

      Kempe “didn’t post a link to anything like this” because : (1) It would have made him look a fool, and (2) It would have made him look dishonest

      You pasted a quote in conjunction with a reference to me which would have mislead anyone who didn’t read the source of the quote. Why did you do that? Quite honestly, I can’t interpret it any other way than deliberate deception.

      • Clark

        “…AS THE REPORT YOU LINKED TO MAKES CLEAR”

        Oh good; you actually read it, which makes a change. I hadn’t bothered, there being much else to read, and having encountered many other reports of improvements to building codes as a result of 9/11. You could try these links instead:

        http://facilityexecutive.com/2006/08/fire-protection-engineers-boost-building-safety-since-911/
        http://facilityexecutive.com/2006/09/five-years-later-fire-protection-engineers-boost-building-safety-since-911/

        Do you still maintain that building CODES (making sure I use the right word these days) have remained entirely unchanged since 9/11? Are you still implying that all the world’s building authorities secretly agree that the collapses were really demolitions, and therefore aren’t taking any real action?

        • Clark

          It’s an interesting concept you’ve raised. I thought of structural engineering as a mostly public endeavour, with communication in professional and academic journals, that sort of thing. Under your interpretation, I suppose, that’s all just a front, with their real communication proceeding secretly. Do you suppose “they” use the “darkweb”? What else might they be covering up besides the 9/11 collapse dynamics? Maybe all high-rise buildings were holograms all along, and “they” have to keep it quite lest the placebo effect fail and millions of office workers, high-rise dwellers and their furniture all come crashing to the ground?

        • Node

          No Clark, I don’t believe you. The article was short and clear. The third sentence is :

          “The first major modernization of the city’s building codes in nearly 40 years; the 2008 New York City Codes are based on the 2003 International Building, Plumbing, Mechanical, Fuel Gas and Fire Codes. “

          It was clear from the start that the codes had nothing to do with 9/11, yet you pretended they were. You deliberately set out to mislead readers of this thread and to malign me, yet when I call you on it, no admission, no apology, just bluster.

          What’s more, when I caught you lying earlier on this page, you made the same excuse : that you hadn’t bothered reading what you’d quoted. Well either that’s another lie or it’s the truth. If it’s another lie, then we can’t trust anything you say because you are a habitual liar. If it’s the truth, we can’t trust anything you say because you don’t care whether it’s accurate or not.

          Therefore we can’t trust anything Clark says.

          • Clark

            I didn’t read the article, but so what? The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which held responsibility for the WTC site, was immune to New York building codes in any case, as you’d know if you could see past your desperation to promote demolition theories.

            “we can’t trust anything Clark says” is just an ad-hominen attack, but I don’t expect myself or any commenter to be believed for the sake of it. It’s evidence and reasoning that matter.

          • Node

            I didn’t read the article ….

            What, you didn’t read as far as the third sentence? You’re lying.

            …. , but so what

            So you don’t have the right to have your opinion respected.

            “we can’t trust anything Clark says” is just an ad-hominen attack

            No it’s not. An ad hominem attack is ” directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.” I didn’t say “Clark is a liar”, I said “we can’t trust anything Clark says.” I am attacking your position in that by the logic of your own statements, it’s a lie or inaccurate.

            The reason you have lost my respect is encapsulated in your first and last sentences above.

            I didn’t read the article, but so what? [….] It’s evidence and reasoning that matter.

          • Clark

            I didn’t read the article at all. With a bit more thought I’d have realised its relevance was probably minimal. NIST said “The 40 code changes were adopted less than five years from the release of the final report on WTC 1 and 2” referring to NCSTAR 1, which was released in 2005, so 2008 was too early, and the Port Authority wasn’t covered by New York codes in the first place. I just noticed part of the link “one-month-in-new-building-codes-in-the-big-apple” and posted it up for you.

            Lazy and sloppy on my part but hey; how much effort have you earned? Be honest; how hard did you look to see if codes had been improved in response to 9/11? My guess is “not at all”. You just hadn’t heard of such improvements so assumed they didn’t exist, and posted up your assumption as an “argument” for pre-rigged demolition without thinking through the implication that The Demolition Conspiracy would have to be expanded to include all the building regulators. Then you used your assumption that Kempe belongs to The Demolition Conspiracy to justify your own lack of research, and now your ego won’t let you retract so you’re trying out clever wordings to call me a liar without directly saying so.

          • Clark

            “The reason you have lost my respect…”

            You shouldn’t pretend that I ever had your respect in the first place. Exexpat repeatedly accused me of being part of the alleged 9/11 conspiracy, and you told me to apologise for getting a bit narked.

    • John Goss

      “You’re going to be tried and then RobG is going to shoot you, but only with a lead bullet so it’ll bounce off; John Goss has proved that.”

      Idiot! This sniping at people who are not commenting is out of order. Just pick up your aluminium saw and cut through a chunk of angular structural steel. That should keep you from posting more drivel.

  • John Goss

    Newtonian physics has never been disproved. It is generally the nature of any law of physics. Which separates it from a theory.

    Because Clark took a swipe at me when I was away from this thread I feel justified in making this comment. If I suspected that Clark, who appears to have set himself up as guardian angel of this thread, has been compromised and is now on the payroll of some disinformation company, that would be a theory. I have no proof. If I suspected he was paid for every response in which his manipulators thought he had made a satisfactory answer to reasonable argument that too would only be a theory. If I thought perhaps he had earned any dosh for a few days and it prompted him to put up a comment with the simple word “test” to see if anyone was out there that he could provoke into argument to induce a little supplementary income, it would be nothing more than a theory. And I’m not saying that.

    Which brings me round to facts. Facts regarding the demolition of the twin towers need to have a basis in logic. Because of Newton’s third law a steel-structured building cannot be brought down from above. It is impossible without weakening the structure below. In any scenario where the upper part did fall it would topple one way or another leaving most of what was below it intact.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQcAcm0ZD4A

    Even though this video dismantles the opinion of the Clark’s one aiding and abetting scholar, Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, (first to inspect the girders) who has stuck his neck on the line with contentious support for the government and Clark’s argument that aluminium aircraft brought down the structural-steel twin towers, it is unlikely Clark will watch it, or if he does he will, as usual, dismiss it without comment. It appears he does not even read the articles he posts himself. And why should he? His opinion is formed. Nothing anybody can do, write or say will ever change that.

    Mainstream media are preparing for the truth to emerge so they can say we were among the first to speculate on this (even though it was 15 years after the event). It is a truth so uncomfortable the US does not want to hear it, so condemnatory it is almost unbelievable.

    As well as being almost unbelievable that a government would mass-murder its own people to steal foreign resources its aims have come to nothing, except more mass murder, war and the almost total anihilation of vast areas of the Middle East. Anybody with a conscience would want to get to the truth, but as the above video shows there has been nothing but prevention of getting to the truth from the start.

    For the umpteenth time it points out that NIST never investigated the possibility of explosives having been used.

    Coming to this thread is so depressing. One person is responsible for the non-stop dissemination of misinformation whether knowingly or not, like a fundamentalist preacher, so convinced of his own truth. Sometimes Kempe joins Clark in support. Together they drive others away. It has to be said.

    • Clark

      “As well as being almost unbelievable that a government would mass-murder its own people to steal foreign resources its aims have come to nothing…”

      It has NOT come to nothing. The people who initiated the wars have made a lot of money from them. Carlyle Group, BAE Systems, Blackwater/Xe, and all the defence contractors of the ATC mentioned in Kill the Messenger, the excellent documentary about Sibel Edmonds and her ongoing campaign to reveal the real truth about 9/11, rather than the unscientific, time-wasting nonsense about hologram aircraft and demolition of the Twin Towers, which are distractions. The principle is called imperialism, and Craig has written about it repeatedly:

      There’s Good Money in Death

      https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2007/08/theres_good_mon/

      Regarding the collapses:

      “Because of Newton’s third law a steel-structured building cannot be brought down from above…”

      Newton’s law of action and reaction makes NO reference to the materials of which the objects consist, steel or otherwise. Newton’s laws of motion have been misused as an appeal to authority, misleading others into believing unscientific assertions, and I feel angry about that.

      “…It is impossible without weakening the structure below”

      Obviously, not if the structure below was weak enough in the first place.

      To explain again, the vertical support was concentrated in the vertical columns. Vertical support was not distributed evenly throughout the horizontal cross-sectional area of the Towers. Your action-reaction argument applies ONLY in the vanishingly unlikely case that as the top parts of the Towers began to fall, every section of severed column lined up and fell precisely upon the top of the corresponding column beneath.

      In all other cases, the majority of the weight of the falling sections would have encountered either empty air, if it fell outside the perimeter, or floor slab if it fell inside. The floor slabs could not supply sufficient reaction force to support the falling weight:

      http://www.killick1.plus.com/odds/diag.png

      John, the theory you are quoting is Chandler’s early one. It is wrong, which is why A&E 9/11 Truth no longer cite it.

      “In any scenario where the upper part did fall it would topple one way or another…”

      If you slip while standing on ice, your bum will land roughly where your feet were, because the low friction of ice can supply little frictionalt reaction force against the movement of your feet. Likewise, the lightweight construction of the Twin Towers could provide insufficient lateral reaction to prevent the bottom of the falling sections from moving in the opposite direction from the top.

      To put it another way, toppling implies movement, and therefore acceleration, of the centre of mass of the toppling body. F=ma – so you need a force to accelerate a mass. That force can only come from the body’s contact with what is beneath. If what is beneath breaks before it can supply sufficient force, the centre of mass must cease accelerating laterally.

      Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl did NOT support the US government. He OPPOSED it. The US government passed the 2002 act which prevented NIST from attributing blame regarding the design and construction of the Twin Towers.

      “Aluminium aircraft” did NOT bring down “the structural-steel twin towers”; the aircraft only damaged and set fire to the Towers, which then started collapsing, destroying themselves by their own gravitational potential energy.
      – – – – – – – –

      John, I wouldn’t lie. Demolition theory is wrong. It’s divisive and a distraction. It’s anti-scientific because it turns good people against the academic community including people like Chomsky. If the neocons wanted an event like 9/11 it would have been very easy to arrange with a few words through the usual covert channels to the usual Saudi princes. No need to lace the Towers with explosives because they were cheap and nasty anyway.

      And if you think Trump is going to reveal what you think “the Truth” is, think again. He doesn’t just support Israel; he supports Likud and Netanyahu:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tm5Je73bYOY

    • Clark

      ” NIST never investigated the possibility of explosives having been used”

      NIST didn’t investigate energy beams from orbit. Nor did they investigate meteorite strike, nor newly-evolved (genetically engineered?) steel-eating worms, nor destruction by the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Why should they? They already had testimony of the top sections leaning, serious creaking noises from the structure, and photographic and video evidence of serious inward bowing. including critical failure at the moment of collapse initiation.

      If NIST should have investigated any other theory it should be my silly suggestion of extra weight imported to the uppermost floors, because that is at least consistent with the observed bowing.

      • Paul Barbara

        And don’t forget, the testimony, hidden for a year or two before a newspaper got the First-Responder tapes, of over 100 First Repsonders claiming ‘EXPLOSIONS’ in the WTC buildings! Not one of them, however, mentioned seeing a ‘Flying Spaghetti Monster’, or a ‘Beam From Space’, or a ‘Meteorite’, or even GMO Steel-Eating Worms’.
        So whilst they quite rightly didn’t investigate the possibility of these spurious ‘Straw Men’, they were ‘CRIMINALLY WRONG’ in not testing for explosives, which was ‘MANDATORY’ in such a collapse.

    • Clark

      John, I watched the video you linked in your comment above, December 2 at 17:17. It has some interesting c-span sequences near the beginning, and it makes an important point that investigators had a responsibility to test for explosives and exotic accelerants. Although I think that authorities should carry out their responsibilities, I don’t expect it would have made any difference because Truthers would just claim that the test results were fabricated.

      The video makes no direct accusation at anyone in government beyond the usual non-specific “Inside Job” cliché. However, it does “name and shame” a number of individuals. I’d like you to answer the following. Who are those individuals, and what do they have in common?

      Another question: who made and published the video?

      – – – – – – – –

      My “test” comment was because I seemed to be on pre-mod. It seems that ad-hominen is permitted selectively.

  • Node

    Be honest; how hard did you look to see if codes had been improved in response to 9/11?

    Hard enough to be sure that I wouldn’t get egg on my face if I challenged you and Kempe to check. I’ve searched, so have you, and so has Kempe. None of us can find a single example of a significant change in building regulations as a result of 9/11. How do you explain that, Clark, given that the three collapses were largely blamed on poor design and construction methods?

    Please answer the question.

    • Clark

      Well NIST’s recommendations look sensible to me – fire resistance, fire control, improved egress, protection of egress, elevators for firefighters, resistance to progressive collapse. The recommendations seem to have been incorporated into the “model codes”, and the new buildings at the World Trade Centre seem to have incorporated the improvements.

      Some codes didn’t need to be changed because the Twin Towers, under the Port Authority’s immunity, didn’t comply with the existing ones to begin with.

      It looks to me like you’re making a lot of fuss about nothing, but to really check I’d have to find and compare building codes from before and after. But actually, that’s YOUR job, not mine. You made the assertion, so you carry the burden of proof. Otherwise, it’s Cosmic Teapot time all over again.

      So are you actually claiming that it’s common knowledge among the mechanical engineering and building regulation communities that the Twin Towers were actually demolished, but that all their communications in professional and academic publications and forums pretend otherwise? And if you are claiming that, where (do you propose) does their honest communication proceed?

      • Clark

        Actually, “three collapses” weren’t “largely blamed on poor design and construction methods”. That’s what much of the perception management has been about, including the non-disclosure agreements and the 2002 act. And seeding of demolition theory might have been part of the perception management; it has certainly helped.

    • Clark

      Node, OK, I did the work (as usual). Here you go:

      http://facilityexecutive.com/2008/10/new-building-code-revisions-adopted-by-icc/

      “The International Code Council (ICC) has approved 23 building and fire code changes based on recommendations from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). The recommendations were part of NIST’s investigation of the collapses of the World Trade Center (WTC) in New York on 9/11.

      […]

      – The new codes address areas such as:

      * Increasing structural resistance to building collapse from fire and other incidents
      * Requiring a third exit stairway for tall buildings
      * Increasing the width of all stairways by 50% in new high-rises
      * Strengthening criteria for the bonding, proper installation and inspection of sprayed fire-resistive materials (commonly known as “fireproofing”)
      * Improving the reliability of active fire protection systems (i.e., automatic sprinklers)
      * Requiring a new class of robust elevators for access by emergency responders in lieu of an additional stairway
      * Making exit path markings more prevalent and more visible
      * Ensuring effective coverage throughout a building for emergency responder radio communications.

      – Not Approved, But To Be Reconsidered

      – There were nine building and fire code change proposals consistent with the NIST WTC investigation recommendations that were not approved for the 2009 edition of the I-Codes but will be considered for resubmission at a later date after being amended.”

      I think your problem may have been that you searched for “building regulations”. They’re called “codes” in the US.

      • Node

        Ha ha, this where it all started. You’ve just gone full circle. Back here I said:

        The One World Trade Center replaced the World Trade Center. Here are the extra safety measures introduced as a result of 9/11.

        # Elevators housed in protected central building core
        # Protected tenant collection point on each floor
        # Dedicated staircase for firefighters
        # Extra-wide pressurized staircases
        # Concrete-protected sprinklers, emergency risers, and communication systems

        They tweaked the sprinklers! That’s it! The rest are rescue and evacuation measures. No change in construction methods to stop truss joint failure, no improved steel quality to raise ‘softening’ temperature, no specification for less flammable fixtures & fittings.

        And that’s why I have always included the word “significant” when I’ve asked you to cite changes in building regulations as a result of 9/11.

        • Clark

          That’s because you left out “Increasing structural resistance to building collapse from fire and other incidents”, and you’ve ignored Astaneh-Asl’s point: “…the designers used stronger steel (measured in what is known as “yield strength”) in some columns than is allowed by **ANY** U.S. building codes, and that such steel is less flexible — and therefore more brittle — than the type traditionally used in such buildings”. This part of the codes didn’t need to be improved; the problem was that the Port Authority abused its immunity. You’ve also downplayed the significance of measures to improve evacuation. It is again as if Truthers care more about buildings than they do about people.

          Congratulations on concocting your own non-incident to crow about. When you stop doing this sort of thing, I shall stop referring to you as a Truther. Should I now advertise that “we can’t trust anything Node says”?

          Now. You wrote “Please answer the question”, and I did; the code improvements certainly seem significant to me. So now please answer my questions to you, which are at the end of this comment:

          https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-100/#comment-640443

          • Node

            So now please answer my questions to you

            So are you actually claiming that it’s common knowledge among the mechanical engineering and building regulation communities that the Twin Towers were actually demolished, but that all their communications in professional and academic publications and forums pretend otherwise?

            I don’t understand why you think this follows from my comments, but the answer to the question is … No I’m not claiming that. But do I think it’s true? I don’t know, but probably.

            And if you are claiming that, where (do you propose) does their honest communication proceed?

            I’m not claiming that, and I don’t understand the rest of the question.

          • Node

            KOWN : Node, do you know what changes to building regulations they have introduced, in the wake of Building 7 ….

            Not aware of any changes in building laws, but they’ve introduced substantial changes to Newton’s laws in response to the collapse.

          • Clark

            “…but they’ve introduced substantial changes to Newton’s laws in response to the collapse”

            Have they bollocks. You’re just trying to wind me up; having a laugh at thousands of dead people’s expense.

        • KingofWelshNoir

          Node, do you know what changes to building regulations they have introduced, in the wake of Building 7, to guard against the spontaneous collapse of buildings that are not hit by planes? Scarce a day goes by without some tall skyscraper not getting hit by a plane, it’s very worrying. If you see Jane Standley standing outside one, run!

          • Clark

            “Spontaneous collapse”? Doesn’t burning for seven hours with no sprinklers count for anything? The great gashes and shock waves produced by the collapses of the Twin Towers?

            If you’ve read this thread you’ll know I wonder a lot about WTC7’s collapse, but lack of perspective and denial of context seem to characterise Trutherism, and I really think it’s obstructing progress. There hasn’t been much progress, has there?

            We get our images, our impressions of 9/11 from TV and vid. It reduces everything to miniaturised caricatures. It does injustice to the very real events.

          • Clark

            Barry Jennings was descending a stairway in WTC7 when WTC1* collapsed, rubble sweeping into WTC7’s lobby. It destroyed the stairway beneath him so suddenly that he took it for an explosion. WTC7’s collapse cannot be regarded as spontaneous.

            * I might have got the time-line wrong. I must listen to Jennings’ interview again. I wish I’d kept my transcript, but no one would discuss it with me at the time; Truthers seem to have an aversion to accuracy.

          • KingofWelshNoir

            One reason Trutherism gets nowhere is people get lost in endless labyrinthine debate.
            That’s why I stick to Building 7.
            It’s just so simple.
            Firemen tell people to get back because the building is about to blow up.
            There’s an explosion and the Building collapses, exhibiting the characteristics of a controlled demolition.
            It’s so obvious it was blown up and on any other day of the year everyone would accept that.
            But to accept that on 9/11 means to contradict the official narrative, and sadly, a lot of people would rather disbelieve the evidence of their senses than disbelieve what authority tells them.
            That’s it in a nutshell for me.
            And I will happily abandon that position as soon as someone can offer an alternative explanation of that scene with the fireman. An explanation that is plausible and does not require me to stretch common sense to breaking point or change the meaning of commonly understood words.

          • Node

            KOWN : Node, do you know what changes to building regulations they have introduced, in the wake of Building 7 ….

            Oops, I answered this in the wrong place and my answer has appeared before your question was even asked, almost as if I had foreknowledge ……..

          • Clark

            Was there an explosion? Most videos don’t record one. It looks like a demolition, but Chandler measured half a second of descent at uniform velocity before acceleration started. The east mechanical penthouse fell in several seconds before the final collapse started, so surely there’d need to be two volleys of explosions/ And the building was on fire, which has a tendency to set off explosives prematurely.

            There’s nothing clear-cut about the damn thing.

          • Clark

            And it really isn’t that I’d rather believe the official narrative, it’s that the evidence is ambiguous. If firefighters came forward and said they were told to get people back so that charges could be detonated I’d accept that, but firefighters spoke out plenty about 9/11 but none ever said that, so far as I know.

          • Clark

            If I remember rightly, there’s one witness who says that a fireman said there was a countdown, but who subsequently said various other things that seem dubious.

            There’s reference to a “transit” in the firefighters’ testimonies. If (as I’ve been told) this refers to an instrument to measure deformation of the building, it could have provided warning of immanent collapse. Someone needs to go through the testimonies.

          • Paul Barbara

            @ Clark
            You must be aware that the WTC buildings were not ‘raging fires’, but smoldering oxygen-starved fires giving off black smoke, as opposed to many Tower Blocks which I’m sure you have seen, which were raging infernos, and burnt for far longer than the WTC buildings, and oddly DID NOT COLLAPSE.

            Re Barry Jennings, when he and his co-worker started descending the stairs, before either Twin came down; the stairway exploded under them, and they managed to get back to the floor above (I believe the 8th floor. WTC “, of course, collapsed first. BOTH were still standing when Barry Jennings went to the window, having survived (with his co-worker) the collapsing stairway.

            *Yes, you do have the time-line wrong.

          • Clark

            Paul, the fires in the Twin Tower were extensive, and the Towers were severely damaged. And I think they were shit, cheap, lightweight buildings to begin with, as various experts have admitted. The sprinklers weren’t working but they’d have been utterly inadequate in any case. And of course both towers had just suffered enormous shocks from the aircraft impacts.

            Re Barry Jennings, I think you’re referring to the question-and-answer session in the second part of the vid. In the first part, his spontaneous account, he relates looking out of WTC7, something like:

            “You look one way, the building was there, look the other and the building was +gone+”.

  • Nikko

    Ultimately the discussion of building regulations or codes is neither here nor there as regards the manner of the collapse of the twin towers. Even if the regs were flouted and the workmanship shoddy, what needs to be explained is the massive release of sideways and upwards energy that was able to hurl not only the cladding but also junks of the outer wall hundreds of feet sideways.
    Here is a reminder of the forces involved
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dh4r-gHdyPU

    No doubt Clark, as he promised 2 or 3 pages back, is working on an all-encompassing theory linking energy creation to shoddy workmanship, falling debris and boundary layer behaviour but until he comes up with a convincing model based on real physics, controlled demolition is the best explanation there is.

    • Nick

      Is it possible you could all be partly right? Firstly…the building was fatally flawed in design so silverstein bought it cheap. Now there is no way the towers can be controlled demolished and the building flaws would be exposed. So as silverstein “in” with the power structure he has been approached to buy the towers as a “business” opportunity? Hence many birds killed with one stone(or two planes). Silverstein makes a mint on insurance….two ropey badly built buildings on their last legs are pulled and the us government has its raison d’etre to have its war on terror. Does it really matter if it was controlled demolition or not ffs? Its an effect not a cause! I honestly don’t know if explosives were used or not. I don’t care because the cause was the buildings were coming down. The effect was the war on terror and the usual suspects making a mint out it.

      • Clark

        The usual suspects are certainly making a mint out of their wars.

        The trouble with demolition theory is all the jeering demolition theorists who seem to have decided that Noam Chomsky, Michael Moore, Amy Goodman, Julian Assange and anyone else including random commenters who aren’t convinced are secretly supporting the conspiracy. There’s something very wrong there.

        • Nick

          I think…imho…that arguing over controlled demolition is pointless. Total red herring
          While intelligent people on both sides of the debate argue the main players have moved 15 years on with their gameplan. I am sure the towers were coming down that day…be it controlled demolition or because of fatal design flaws.

    • Clark

      “…massive release of sideways and upwards energy”

      But there’s nothing going upwards, and nothing going much further sideways than the tops of the big sections, which obviously start by pivoting on their relatively stationary bases. They accelerate under gravity, whereas shrapnel would decelerate due to air resistance. Everything is clearly arcing more downwards than outwards. It looks like a collapse, not explosions; it barely even disperses its own dust until it hits ground where you’d expect it to. I don’t understand; I really don’t know what you’d expect a collapse to look like.

      • Nikko

        See here at 41 seconds onwards (top right hand corner) for upward release of energy 7 seconds after the start of the collapse
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfSAiDq15ys

        You really have the telescope to the blind eye if you can’t see chunks of the outer wall 60 to 100 metres horizontally away from their original position.

        “Everything is clearly arcing more downwards than outwards.”
        Obviously. The downward gravity force act continuously while the horizontal was of short duration.

        • Clark

          What, the billowing cloud of brown dust after the top of the building has long since gone? It seems to have happened far too late to have been caused by any explosion involved in causing the collapse. It billows like a sizeable updraught so I think it’s another effect of expelled air. No heavy matter falls out of it, and it’s not preceded by a spray of shrapnel from where it seemed to emanate.

          • Nikko

            Yes, the one that looks like a mushroom cloud developing. Sorry, but your attributing to expelled air in an unconfined space is risible. That you can’t see matter coming out of it is not a proof that it was not an explosion.

            You keep ignoring the outer walls projected 80 metres horizontally – do I take it that you put that down also to expelled air

          • Clark

            Well we know the antenna started to descend first so presumably there was a bloody great hole in the roof; maybe a big up-welling was expelled through that as the section fell. But it’s not up to me to disprove explosives; it’s your extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence, and after fifteen years you have no human evidence at all.

            I do NOT “ignore” behaviour of the wall sections; I explicitly describe and explain it. Don’t misrepresent, and don’t try to take the piss; those are cheap shots, disrespectful to readers’ intelligence 🙂

          • Nikko

            When challenged about specifics your comments are getting sillier and sillier.

            “Well we know the antenna started to descend first so presumably there was a bloody great hole in the roof; maybe a big up-welling was expelled through that as the section fell.”

            “maybe” is hardly a scientific explanation – more like wishful thinking.

            “But it’s not up to me to disprove explosives; it’s your extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence, and after fifteen years you have no human evidence at all.”

            I have no idea what you mean by “human evidence” but we have visual evidence of explosions and squibs in front of the collapsing front, witness evidence of explosions, the existence of horizontal forces, evidence of nano thermite in the dust, near free fall speed of collapse.
            We also know that the twin Tower collapses bear great similarity to known controlled demolitions
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbff_Ol-izY&feature=youtu.be

            It is hardly me making an extraordinary claim knowing that all of that can be achieved with a controlled demolition – it is you making the extraordinary claim that gravity is responsible for it all.

            If you do not ignore the behaviour of the wall sections thrown hundreds of feet sideways, then answer where the energy to do that has come from. Saying that you describe and explain it is not the same as doing so. And it has to make sense. It is you taking the piss.

          • Clark

            Nikko, that video has been posted before and I went through it in great detail. In every case where we can see, the explosions occur before collapse begins. The Twin Towers show the opposite; collapse preceeds the ejections, including the ones you call “squibs”.

            Well with the antenna falling we can presume severe damage to the centre of the roof, and as the top section fell the air within had to go somewhere. So it’s my evidence-based presumption versus your evidence-free assumption.

            By “human evidence” I mean testimony, or a paper-trail, or a leak; anything like that. Not even any of the whistleblowers who were within the US system have any personal testimony supporting demolition of the Twin Towers.

            The Twin Tower collapses look nothing like controlled demolitions. They look like top-down progressive collapses. If they looked otherwise I would say so.

            The big sections of perimeter are NOT “thrown” outward. Watch them; quite clearly, they topple before breaking free and falling.

          • Clark

            The energy to topple the perimeter sections outward came from the kinetic energy of the falling top sections, which in turn came from those top sections’ gravitational potential energy. Care to get a figure on the PE?

          • Nikko

            “Nikko, that video has been posted before and I went through it in great detail. In every case where we can see, the explosions occur before collapse begins. The Twin Towers show the opposite; collapse precedes the ejections, including the ones you call “squibs”.”

            Yes you went to great lengths before to describe something which others can’t see. We’ll have to agree to disagree.

            “The energy to topple the perimeter sections outward came from the kinetic energy of the falling top sections, which in turn came from those top sections’ gravitational potential energy. Care to get a figure on the PE?”

            So according to you the potential energy transformed into sufficient kinetic energy of the falling rubble to produce sufficient horizontal forces capable to throw massive chunks of steel hundreds of feet laterally. All at the same time there remained enough PE left to continue to accelerate the collapse downwards at near free fall speeds and destroy the building through the path of greatest resistance.

            What is this mechanism whereby downward gravitational forces are converted into lateral forces without hardly a loss of energy?

            “The big sections of perimeter are NOT “thrown” outward. Watch them; quite clearly, they topple before breaking free and falling.”

            If they were not thrown outwards, how do you explain the distance of hundreds of feet away from their original position. Gravity acts downwards. Get real, Clark.

        • Clark

          And yes I can see the tops of chunks of the outer wall a long way out from their original position, but I can also see them swinging out to that point, pivoting around their relatively stationary bases. Some such action is shrouded in dust, but enough examples are visible to recognise the “peeling” effect.

          • Nikko

            What you call swinging out is a parabolic path due to the combined effect of independent horizontal and vertical forces. What caused the horizontal force?

          • Clark

            The tops swinging outwards effect is clearly visible in multiple examples. If you are refusing to acknowledge it, it is you with a telescope to your blind eye. Smaller pieces move parabolicly, consistent with detaching from or being pushed by the large pieces.

          • Nikko

            What tops swinging outwards? Can you be more accurate in your description. If you mean the whole top section of the building above the line of impact, then that was WTC 2. The videos I posted are WTC 1, which went down pretty much straight. So once again, what caused the horizontal force?

      • Paul Barbara

        Are you forgetting the 300-odd ton part of the WTC which was embedded like an arrow into a building across quite some distance away? And bone fragments on top of buildings?

        http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread720526/pg1
        ‘….– Steel beams, weighing up to 200,000 pounds, were thrown laterally up to 500 feet. A 300 ton cross section was embedded in the corner of the American Express building, which would have had to travel at least 390ft. Gordon Ross believes that we should have seen a pyramidal debris pile, not steel beams being ejected in a cloud of pulverized concrete.

        — Firefighters and hundreds of eyewitnesses reported a series of explosions before and during the collapses, even at the base of the towers, as would be present in a controlled demolition. Firefigher John Schroder was inside of the building during one of the explosions, and an elevator exploded, then a bunch of people came running out of the elevator on fire, which was supposedly caused by a plane crashing into the top of the tower. After making his way along with another firefighter up to the 24th floor, the second plane hit, and they decided to return downstairs. When they returned to the lobby everything was “blown out and exploded”, and every single window was blown out, and they were several inches thick.

        — The steel from the WTCs was mostly shipped overseas, eliminating the possiblity for independent investigations. Four companies were contracted for debris removal, controlled and monitored by a three person team, and each truck was fitted with a GPS locator. FEMA’s Building Performance Assessment Team was not granted access to Ground Zero, and only given a tour in which they could not take samples or examine blueprints…..’

        And FEMA’s Building Performance Assessment Team just accepted that situation, and didn’t make one hell of a public stink about it? Yeh, right… Proper ‘good ‘ole Americans’, don’t want to rock the boat…

        • Clark

          No, I’m not forgetting, and such debris was not “thrown”. You seem to be forgetting that the Twin Towers were much higher than the distances at which debris landed.

          The collapse process did not emit much dust. Watch the videos. By far, most of the dust was emitted as the collapse reached ground level. I therefore conclude that crushing rather than explosives caused the dust.

          Please link firefighter John Schroder’s testimony.

          The Twin Towers clearly collapsed from the damaged zones downwards. The demolition theory is that a “demolition wave” was sequenced to proceed down the building, making the collapse front proceed at the rate seen on video. Explosions at any time before collapse have no bearing upon this, and therefore are not evidence ofr so-called controlled demolition.

          However, your two final paragraphs are very important. The WTC site and wreckage was not treated as a crime scene should be. Full investigation of the buildings’ structure was precluded. Claims were settled out of court and gag orders imposed.

          • Nikko

            “No, I’m not forgetting, and such debris was not “thrown”. You seem to be forgetting that the Twin Towers were much higher than the distances at which debris landed.”

            In a post of 6 Dec, since deleted (Clark knows how to delete posts) Clark wrote to the effect that he has no problems with Newton.

            Well Newton would have had a big problem with Clark.

          • Clark

            “In a post of 6 Dec, since deleted (Clark knows how to delete posts) Clark wrote to the effect that he has no problems with Newton”

            I expect you mean this comment:

            https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-100/#comment-641012

            Make a stack of dominoes or something; keep building it higher until it collapses. Dominoes end up a considerable distance from the base of the stack, and the higher the stack was, the more they will have spread. Sir Isaac has nothing to retract, and neither do I.

        • Nikko

          If domino pieces end up some distance from the base. it is because the upper section of the tower has toppled sideways and/or they slid on top of each other after they landed. You will never observe any dominoes pieces hurtled horizontally while in the air

          • Clark

            Yes it’s a different dynamic from the Twin Towers. But neither require explosives to remain consistent with Newton, and it seems dishonest of you to imply that it does.

          • Nikko

            If it is a different dynamic why use it as an example.

            Explosives are consistent with Newton. Massive chunks of steel accelerating horizontally under gravity are not.

          • Clark

            When a tree is felled, the top “accelerates horizontally under gravity” with no need for explosives. This is very similar to the toppling of the large perimeter sections. Sir Isaac is not offended.

          • Nikko

            Another inappropriate example. When a tree is felled it rotates around the cutting point and falls intact. Branches do not separate and fly off horizontally.

            Anyway, the Twin Towers were not felled. Sir Isaac must spinning in his grave at your interpretation of his work

          • Clark

            Very odd, these “explosions” you insist upon seeing (but which no one heard), in that they eject no materiel inclined above the horizontal.

            Toppling objects may impact others, and also themselves break:

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8J2z_F1484
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x45-0VlvLs4

            Sir Isaac rests in peace because angular momentum is also conserved. Oh, I suspect that comment will provoke you to complain about the falling top sections of the Towers, neglecting that other forces acted. Observe: action and reaction:

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2I1UMuBWRE

            Both birds killed by one vid.

          • Clark

            Correction; three flighty birds with the same clip. Note that the lower line of dust ejections follow the lower extent of the falling section. Now you can complain that such ejections have been attributed to air pressure, but it matters not. The salient point is that explosives are not necessary, so Occam says “dispense with them”, along with FSM (pesto be upon him).

          • Nikko

            Sir Isaac rests in peace only as far as the falling chimneys are concerned. Fancy you posting a video of WTC 2 where angular momentum was definitely NOT conserved.

            The leading line of dust ejections follow a dotted line superimposed on the video. You can’t see what is happening to the fulcrum of rotation through dust.

            Care to explain why rotation of the upper section stopped. And while you are at it we are still waiting for a credible explanation of the forces that threw steel sideways.

          • Clark

            Well, angular momentum +was+ conserved, or physics was on holiday, so I assume you mean that explosives are required to account for the cessation of rotation (or tipping) of the top section. But why? The lower sections of core and perimeter were clearly contacting the upper section. For goodness sake, you can +see+ the huge section of lower perimeter pushed outward at its top by the falling top section; that’s a +huge+ transfer of angular momentum from the top section to the lower perimeter.

            Jeez, how many tonnes of explosive do you think it would take to arrest the top section’s rotation? And +where+ must it have been? And +why+ bother putting it there? Who could have +cared+ whether the top fell over or not?

            And +there’s+ some of the force you’re looking for.

            I think I must be misunderstanding you. There seems no conceivable reason for you to post the argument I’m responding to.

          • Nikko

            There is every reason to ask you to explain your arguments because without a solid basis in physics they are worthless.

            OK, physics was not on holiday so something had to apply a resisting force to arrest the rotation of the upper section. In the last video you posted the upper section stops rotating at 22 seconds; by that time smoke and dust is emerging in pyroclastic type flow completely obscuring the view of what is happening at the collapse front. You just cannot say that
            “ …..The lower sections of core and perimeter were clearly contacting the upper section. For goodness sake, you can +see+ the huge section of lower perimeter pushed outward at its top by the falling top section; that’s a +huge+ transfer of angular momentum from the top section to the lower perimeter……”
            No you cannot see it as all you see is pyroclastic flow of dust and smoke.

            On the one hand you are telling us that the towers were so badly designed and shoddily built that they just fell apart like a house of cards due to the weight of falling floors and rubble; on the other hand you want to have it that the structure was strong enough to arrest the rotation of the upper section of 34 floors after it rotated 25 degrees. You can’t have it both ways, so which is it?

            An alternative explanation for the arrest of the rotation movement involves explosives tearing the upper section apart. That would certainly explain the pyroclastic flow. Do you really think that the pyroclastic flow could be produced by just the top section falling into the bottom section under gravity?

            Anyway, a second or so before the tower stops rotating, ie at 21 seconds, ejection of gases can be seen 4 or 5 floors below the collapse front, first on the east side, then also on the north side and the whole building starts to collapse in perfect symmetry. What caused this? According to you the building at that point was strong enough to be arresting the rotation of the 34 floors above it.

            And when the main collapse happened, why did the opposite side of the building (to the direction of rotation) collapse at the same time and speed. After all, the tilting was in one direction and on the opposite side there would have been no downward forces on the supporting structure below. What caused it to fail at exactly the same manner, time and speed as the “impacted” side?

            Let’s also take the squibs moving down the building. Have you considered the speed of propagation? Have you checked to ensure that the speed does not exceed what would be possible under gravity alone?

            So the questions I keep asking and you keep avoiding answering are still valid. What is seen is known to be achievable by a controlled demolition. The proof is on you that it was due to gravity alone.

          • Clark

            Nikko, it looks utterly unmysterious to me. Yes there’s dust obscuring the view, but (1) you can get a fair impression of where large sections are moving within it by the way the dust moves and (2) femr2 has drawn on dotted lines so you can tell where pieces presumably went. It all looks valid.

            I see no problem with the structure being weak enough to fail but strong enough to affect the motion of its parts. Such middling effects between complete integrity and utter disintegration are commonplace, as seen in the decelerations during vérinage demolition, for instance. The most important contribution to a building’s strength comes from its geometry – lose the geometry, lose the building. The geometry was not lost all at once.

            In fact your “problems” seem to arise from your own imaginings of explosives – you wrote “explosives tearing the upper section apart” (despite the roof apparently maintaining integrity until it falls into the dust beneath at 0:25); if you’re imagining that the top section had been “torn apart” then of course you’ll be mystified about it displacing huge sections of perimeter laterally and causing the ejections of dust and air as it smashes down on floor slabs in its path.

            You also seem to be imagining “perfect symmetry” – from about 0:22 to 0:24 you can see that the collapse front on the front/left face gets a head start compared with the back/right. This is also consistent with the angle of the lower extent of the falling section (take a right-angle from bottom of the white dotted line towards the back/right).

            Yes of course the dust could be produced by the energy released in the collapse. The potential energy was vast. Go ahead and calculate it, and convert it to equivalent tonnage of TNT. Nevertheless, the bulk of the dust was released in the final moments of collapse, when crushing was greatest.

            You say that the speed of descent is too fast. Yet the only resistance that the top section was certain to encounter was the lightweight floor slabs, rated to take only a fraction of the weight of the falling section, and that as a static load. The speed of descent lags well behind that which would be imparted by gravity if unimpeded. Presumably you say that it does not lag sufficiently, but we both know that mammoth and highly questionable calculations would be needed to determine this, and the debris was spirited away so we cannot determine the original strength of the structure; if it was weak enough, the collapse speed wasn’t too fast.

            I’m sorry Nikko. If you’re determined to see explosives, then explosives you will see. Billions of people can’t imagine the evolution of life or the universe, and thus need to postulate a god. Having invented their god they see its work everywhere, in the “design” of eyes, the symmetry of leaves, and the seal of the arsehole. I see that the buildings’ geometry was disrupted, permitting the buildings’ own weight to destroy the structure. For you, destruction requires an intelligent designer. So be it.

          • Nikko

            Ok, lets leave it here, we are not going to agree. If you ever do figure out what caused the huge lateral forces that hurled massive chunks of steel sideways in a way which leaves Sir Isaac at peace, do let us know.

  • KingofWelshNoir

    FOREKNOWLEDGE

    Everyone talks about the news agencies reporting the collapse of WTC 7before it happened, but as far as I know little attention is paid to this astonishing video, ostensibly of UK Channel 5 News, who report live after the collapse for the first Twin Tower that they have been told the other one is going to come down too, and lo! it does.

    Not only that, but they even claim they found this out from the WTC website which by some miracle had been updated to explain that the reason for the collapse was the outer skin had been penetrated.

    This was after the first collapse and before the second. Quick work by the web design team.

    I would be interested to hear what folk make of his video, it’s been around for years. I can’t vouch for the authenticity, but it looks real enough to me.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kL6N66vPCAs

    • Node

      Don’t know what to make of it. It seems genuine. I tried (unsuccessfully) to find the url of the “website of the World Trade Centre” to see what I’d get if I entered it into the Wayback Machine, Presumably the website is closed down now but there must be references to it still existing. If anybody comes across this old web address they should post it here.

      It seems to me very unlikely that someone had nothing better to do at the time than update the website with an incredibly fast assessment of the buildings structural condition. It reeks of that vox pop where the guy said something like ‘yeah, I saw both buildings come down, the fires had weakened the steel structure to the point where they gave way …’

      However I dare say there are those who will find nothing strange at all in this clip, will argue that perhaps the website manager was a bit of a structural engineer in his spare time, or that Larry Silverstein took time out to email him the info, so I’m afraid it has to join the ever-lengthening list of almost-but-not-quite smoking guns, one more unexplained anomaly in the official narrative.

      I don’t rule out the possibility that this clip might be fake, it’s the sort of shit in the well tactic I would use if I were in charge of shoring up Believer dogma. But it has the Channel 5 News logo which is quite specific and you would imagine the reporters’ voices are identifiable, so my guess is that it is genuine.

      I’ve transcribed the commentary for easier reference :

      Female voiceover:
      “What we can see is that sections of the other tower are also crumbling and the reason this is happening according to the website of the World Trade Centre, they’re actually telling us that the structure, the outside cladding of this building is integral to the safety and security of it. Once you penetrate that apparently the very structure of the building is under threat and that’s why one tower has already collapsed.”

      [edit]

      We see now a live picture of the billowing smoke from the collapsing second tower. It is completely enveloped in smoke. It is on fire and we understand this other tower is also … um, um, in a situation of near collapse.

      Male voiceover:
      “We’re told that the collapses are continuing, that the damage that was made by the two planes hitting the Twin Towers, first one of the Twin Towers we understand has collapsed entirely. We understand that the second Twin Tower – there are also collapses there.”

      42 seconds later the South Tower begins to collapse.

    • Clark

      Try reading the testimonies of the fire chiefs. There were also engineers on site. The deterioration of the buildings was visible. The buildings made groaning noises, and internal doors were jammed due to distortion of the structure. Firefighters had reported collapsed floors. Fire chiefs tried to order the firefighters to evacuate, but the radios were cheap shit.

      Do you people never read anything but Truther sites? Myself, I try to get a balanced view.

        • Clark

          “We KNOW it was demolition, therefore the only sites we trust are those that support demolition, and they PROVE it was demolition”.

          This is called “circular reasoning”. It reinforces fallacy.

      • Paul Barbara

        Well, as William Rodriguez and others have said, there were explosions BEFORE the alleged plane strikes, so yes, it is perfectly possible the central structure was seriously compromised BEFORE the collapse sequence unfolded.

        • Clark

          William Rodriguez’s testimony seemed to change in, I think, 2004, when he got involved with a Truther lawyer. Originally, as broadcast on the day, he claims to have heard a “big rumble” before the fireball burst out of the elevator shaft.

          But in any case he was one floor below ground level at the time, so he couldn’t have known when the aircraft impact occurred.

  • Vronsky

    Clark, you are transparent, you defeat yourself. Take a few steps back and look at the thread: the boldest defender of the official narrative is you – hysterical, aggressive and prolific. If you really want people to accept the official story, stand down. The CIA does not need friends like you. Some idiots are not useful.

    • Clark

      I am NOT defending “the official story”, your binary thinking notwithstanding. I am defending truth, the essential foundation in this chain of dependencies:

      Truth, Justice, Peace.

      Each term is dependent upon those preceding it. I have found NO evidence that the Twin Towers were demolished, The serious 9/11 whistleblowers testimonies do not support it. And explosives cannot cause buckling, which initiated collapse:

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

      The evidence indicates that the Twin Towers were not rigged with explosives. Demolition theories are therefore incompatible with:

      Truth, Justice, Peace.

      Vronsky, do you still cite Sir Isaac? I have no argument with him. Well, not beyond Einstein, anyway, but that doesn’t matter in these circumstances.

      • Clark

        Vronsky, you can accuse me of serving the CIA (however badly), just as I could accuse you of serving the brutal Saudi theocracy and the New York Mob construction racket. I’m not sure which would be more idiotic.

      • Node

        And explosives cannot cause buckling, which initiated collapse

        You keep saying that but it’s not true.

        Sometimes, though, a building is surrounded by structures that must be preserved. In this case, the blasters proceed with a true implosion, demolishing the building so that it collapses straight down into its own footprint (the total area at the base of the building). This feat requires such skill that only a handful of demolition companies in the world will attempt it.

        Blasters approach each project a little differently, but the basic idea is to think of the building as a collection of separate towers. The blasters set the explosives so that each “tower” falls toward the center of the building, in roughly the same way that they would set the explosives to topple a single structure to the side. When the explosives are detonated in the right order, the toppling towers crash against each other, and all of the rubble collects at the center of the building. Another option is to detonate the columns at the center of the building before the other columns so that the building’s sides fall inward.

        http://science.howstuffworks.com/engineering/structural/building-implosion.htm

        • Clark

          You’re actually referring to a different effect, as, I expect, any demolition expert could tell you – and as, I suspect, you already know. In “building implosion”, the walls do not bend inwards before failing.

          In the case of the Twin Towers, inward bowing was seen, photographed and videoed long before each collapse. Try reading the testimonies – here; I’ll link them yet again:

          https://sites.google.com/site/911stories/accountsoftowerstructuralinstabilityande

          • Node

            Are you saying that the quote I posted is not an accurate description of a demolition ‘implosion?’ If not, please note this sentence :

            “Another option is to detonate the columns at the center of the building before the other columns so that the building’s sides fall inward.”

            How do you imagine the building’s sides fall inwards without bowing? The demolition term ‘implosion’ was coined because of it’s visual similarity to a pressure-differential implosion, ie the sides are drawn inwards.

          • Clark

            “Fall inwards”, NOT bend inwards.

            There are lots of videos of building “implosions”. Show me one, just one, that produces inward bowing minutes or seconds before collapse.

          • Clark

            No, I refuse. I am not your performing seal. Videos, photographs and testimony all record inward bowing of the Towers’ perimeters that increased progressively over considerable time until collapse occurred, and NIST supplied a plausible explanation that was consistent with evidence and the proposed overall collapse mechanism. YOU support demolition; it is up to YOU to produce the evidence for it.

            As I have said, if I were tasked with producing the collapses as witnessed, if and only if aircraft strike occurred, I would recommend overloading the upper floors. Producing the effects seen by use of explosives would be an absolute nightmare.

          • Nikko

            No “bowing” inwards was seen on WTC 1. On WTC 2 the whole section of the building above the impact line started to rotate and bowing inwards or buckling through compression failure was seen on the side approaching the ground. On the other side, unseen, there would have been tension.

          • Node

            As I have said, if I were tasked with producing the collapses as witnessed, if and only if aircraft strike occurred, I would recommend overloading the upper floors. Producing the effects seen by use of explosives would be an absolute nightmare.

            You refuse to accept the possibility of demolition, but in order to explain the collapse of the towers you have to make even wilder conjectures. Rather than believe that agents of an insider cabal spent months preparing explosive demolition, you suggest they spent months secretly overloading the top floors of the building. How many tons would be required to guarantee the collapse we saw? How many people would be required to distribute it? Where would they put all these, er, pianos? Are there reports of the floors on the top third of the building being closed beforehand? And given that this scenario requires long preparation and high level collusion, why would the conspirators choose it over the less conspicuous, less demanding of manpower method of … explosive demolition?

          • Clark

            At least it would stand a chance of producing the collapses as witnessed. Regular deliveries of lead-acid accumulators could be passed off as replacements for UPS systems. Enough to take a single floor to just below its overload threshold would do; not so hard to achieve. If an aircraft failed to strike, they could be sold mail-order piecemeal, just like they arrived, whereas your scheme would leave a building with explosives drilled into all the concrete.

            Demolition of the Twin Towers is just something someone made up, the same as my silly suggestion here. There is no evidence for either, but mine is more elegant.

  • Paul Barbara

    As a bit of R&R from 9/11, let’s consider the ‘Crisis Actors’ story. Many people, on hearing that many ‘atrocities’ (like Sandy Hook, Boston Marathon and Nice ‘truck rampage’) are faked, with ‘Crisis Actors’ playing the part of ‘casualties’ and ‘survivors’, throw up their hands in horror and disbelief.
    Well, a little ‘in flagrante’ video, which you won’t find on MSM sites or ‘ISIS clips’: ‘Something Strange Happened After Bombing In Iraq – Fake, Staged, Hoax’: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uiry2xlvgKQ

      • Paul Barbara

        Trouble is, with our videos you don’t have to look so hard! Where is the obvious fakery in your video?
        Somewhere above, you talk of the nose and fuselage of the ‘Plane’ punching through the outer beams, and that the wings would just continue with a ‘sawing motion’. Not so; the perpendicular beams were separated by about a meter of glass, so as each part of the wing, right down to the pips, would have needed to restart the ‘sawing motion’ through a new beam.

          • Clark

            Paul, thanks for posting that video. I hadn’t watched it when I commented.

            I have watched some of the videos on YouTube claiming to expose “crisis actors” and frankly they’re sickening. On essentially no evidence at all, they claim that some grieving relative is acting, just because they smile at some moment or something like that. Or they take a screenshot from a video and compare it with a Facebook profile, and claim that the two images show the same person. Charlatans like Chris Spivey even openly modify the pictures to improve the “match”, and encourage their readers to harass the owners of the Facebook accounts.

            In 1993 my girlfriend at that time hung herself. It was me that got the police to send an officer to her flat. He came and knocked the door open and found her. Later, that day or the next day, I think, I was walking down the main street when a mutual friend came up and started talking to me. Of course, I was in shock. He asked how Marion was, and I replied that she was dead. He didn’t believe me; I had to explain and repeat, and still he didn’t believe me. But, to my shame, I had a huge urge to laugh; it was so hard to suppress. If I’d been caught on camera and posted to YouTube, people like YOU could have been calling ME a “crisis actor”, or maybe accusing me of her murder because I was displaying the “wrong” emotional reaction.

            I’ve seen what passes for evidence with, sorry to say it but with conspiracy theorists. Most of it is utter bunk. So, on the basis of essentially nothing but prejudice, conspiracy theorists are prepared to condemn grieving relatives as cynical exploiters. That is sickening and angers me greatly.

            The video you posted was not like that. It appears to be a genuine video of an atrocity being faked. I’m sorry that I let my prejudice influence me. But you did mention Sandy Hook, the Boston Marathon and Nice, and I know you’ll accept the flimsiest of evidence, sorry to say.

    • Node

      Good find, Paul. It doesn’t prove that every ‘atrocity’ is staged but it proves some are.

      There was a date stamp on that video – 30 October 2016. I Googled that date with “Iraq car bomb” and sure enough there were a wave of such incidents reported for that day :

      “Iraq: Wave of bomb attacks in Baghdad kill at least 17
      Fifth attack on Iraqi capital in a day hits Shia neighbourhood as brief respite from violence in Baghdad ends.”
      http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/10/iraq-wave-bomb-attacks-baghdad-kill-17-161030145640587.html

    • Clark

      Alan Hart is right about self-censorship in the corporate media. Medialens.org do a great job of exposing media bias, basing their work on Chomsky and Herman’s Manufacturing Consent.

      But he fails to consider academia. Academics challenge the media and challenge each other. Academics frequently publish studies that expose media bias.

  • Paul Barbara

    ‘Pilots for 9/11 Truth Mitoa Edjang’: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_-eIAhzuq0

    A Spanish airline pilot with thousands of hours discusses the ludicrous ‘Narrative’ of 4 ‘Highjack Pilots’, the best of which was supposed to be Hani Hanjour, and demonstrates with the help of official US documentation that it was IMPOSSIBLE.
    He makes no conjectures, but I go with the idea these ‘Highjackers’ were Patsies, deliberately laying a ‘Red Herring’ false trail, to be the cover for whatever did happen to the WTC buildings and the Pentagon. They never went near the alleged ‘Hijacked Planes’, just provided a host of ‘False Trails’. The folloowing video will show some of the glaring anomalies:
    ‘ZERO: An Investigation Into 9-11 | Full Documentary’: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gETF0_SOXcg

    • Clark

      I’m downloading the pilot’s video.

      “…for whatever did happen to the WTC buildings and the Pentagon.”

      Why are Truthers obsessed with buildings? I suppose they just can’t face the human reality. I found it difficult myself. What must it be like to live in a country that is the target of Western forces? It must be horrendous; almost impossible to imagine.

      http://www.coia.org.uk/

      • Paul Barbara

        @ Clark December 7, 2016 at 02:41
        ‘….What must it be like to live in a country that is the target of Western forces? It must be horrendous; almost impossible to imagine….’
        Well, stop imagining and read ‘Kill Anything That Moves’.
        I have just finished reading ‘Kill Anything That Moves’ by Nick Turse. I’m sure you’ve all heard of the ‘My Lai Massacre’; well, you may have heard of it, but you will know little about it, unless you have read Nick’s book, were involved, heard about it from someone with first-hand knowledge, or were part of the military cover-up.
        For one thing, it was not one massacre, but two, the other in My Khe, by a completely separate Army group, two miles away, was secretly lumped in with the My Lai Massacre, to make it appear it was a one’off.
        In reality, My Lai’s were going on all over Vietnam, the only difference is the number of victims and that most weren’t exposed in the Media. Many worse cases occurred, all over Vietnam, but they were suppressed. Would-be whistle-blowers were threatened, or actually murdered with ‘Friendly Fire’, which was blamed on the VC.
        The only one of the My Lai perps to get jail time was Lt. Calley, and for the crime of murdering 109 ‘Oriental Human Beings'(!!!!) he served just 40 months, much of it in his own quarters.
        The book has extensive notes; Nick Turse traveled all over Vietnam and the US interviewing victims, perpetrators and eye-witnesses.
        It’s not an easy book to read, page after page of atrocities, most known only to perps and survivors.
        But it is a very pertinent book, giving the endless stream of wars the US and NATO have embarked on, and needs to be widely read.

1 98 99 100 101 102 134

Comments are closed.