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

1 107 108 109 110 111 134
  • Clark

    Paul, your recent comments contradict each other:

    11 April, 02:18 – “…that report [Kean] was great – fiction”

    11 April, 01:18 – “@ KingofWelshNoir April 10, 2017 at 20:44 Thanks for that info; I’ll spread it around”.

    …yet the info KingofWelshNoir posted was the info Pilger learned from the Kean report.

    11 April, 01:21 – “Any decent people respect Pilger. His integrity is not in question by anyone commenting”

    …yet KingofWelshNoir questioned Pilger’s integrity thus:

    10 April, 20:44 – “I suspect he doesn’t really want to go there [presumably Twin Tower demolition theory] because it would destroy in an instant a reputation he has taken years to build in the teeth of fierce criticism and hostility. I really don’t hold that against him.”

    • Paul Barbara

      @ Clark April 11, 2017 at 09:49
      Kean’s report was fiction, and that’s a generous description. What I intended to spread around was Pilger’s position on 9/11, which was much better than I had believed.
      My comment re no one questioning Pilger’s integrity in the comments was in reply to John Goss April 10, 2017 at 20:43, who had written:
      ‘I really respect Pilger. What’s your point?’. I suspect he had not read all the comments, and thought I was slagging off Pilger.

      • John Goss

        ‘I really respect Pilger. What’s your point?’ was aimed at Clark and in response to his comment asking for people’s opinions about Pilger. I am sorry others might have thought it was directed at them.

        As to Kean’s report I have not read it and as far as I know nobody has linked it.

        • Clark

          Kean’s report is the 9/11 Commission Report, which you dismiss as “the government story” and contradictory in every respect to the truth, without having read it. Pilger said that it’s well worth reading.

          • John Goss

            I have just had a look at Chapter 12 and see that the report is blaming US asset Osama Bin Laden who we know had nothing to do with 9/11. I can see it has been written by tossers pushing the George W Bush propaganda and I am surprised that Pilger found it worth reading, unless he was being sarcastic.

          • Clark

            What is the title of Chapter 12?

            No, I haven’t read it yet, but it’s not me who’s dismissing it as nothing but lies. And nor did Pilger, who wrote:

            “Yet, this modest, blue-covered book is a revelation. […] the Kean report makes excruciatingly clear what really happened, then fails to draw the conclusions that stare it in the face”

          • Clark

            ‘I have just had a look at Chapter 12 […] It’s called “WHAT TO DO: A GLOBAL STRATEGY”’

            Now what did Craig write?

            “No paid media journalist would ever dream of reading more than the executive summary of the report, and certainly would never comb through the data tables, which contain the actual information on which the report is just a gloss”


            So you’ve behaved just like the “paid media journalists” that Craig criticised, and missed the very similar point that Pilger made:

            “so the Kean report makes excruciatingly clear what really happened, then fails to draw the conclusions that stare it in the face”



          • John Goss

            This is why you are despised by many: your arrogance. You think you can preach to others after you have been pontificating over a paper you have admittedly not read. Unlike you I do not have to agree with everything Craig says. I do not have to read a report that is full of flaws. There is limited time.

          • Clark

            Ah, so you despise me. I guessed as much. You have become too attached to certain opinions, John. You’ve let your “beginner’s mind” slip away.

            I have not “been pontificating over a paper”; I reported Pilger’s opinion of it. Pilger changed my mind about the 9/11 Commission Report, and when I have the time I will read it.

          • John Goss

            I doubt Clark you will ever read it even with the link. You have been banging on about it in a positive way for three years at least and now we learn you have no idea of its content. But it must be worthwhile because John Pilger says so. Hmm.

          • John Goss

            “Ah, so you despise me. I guessed as much. . .”

            Wrong word – despise. I should not have used it and I apologise. I don’t despise you. You are an intelligent man. That is what frustrates me about you. I will try to explain but no time now.

          • Clark

            My foremost criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report is that so much of it is based upon confessions extracted under torture. Regardless of the accuracy or otherwise of any of its contents, that deliberate application of pain and suffering has to be condemned above everything else. Thanks to our wonderful “free press”, the general public are barely aware of this simple fact:

            “Most people look at the 9/11 Commission Report as a trusted historical document. If their conclusions were supported by information gained from torture, therefore their conclusions are suspect.”


            John, thanks for the apology; respect to you for that. It is part of the human condition to become gripped by intensity and to react impulsively, which is why I took up meditative practice, and why I don’t often comment on the most recent thread these days. You can imagine what it was like moderating at this site; the comments don’t conveniently pause when one needs to calm down, yet still one has to try to apply the rules equally despite profound disagreement with some of their contents.

        • John Goss

          And while I have made mistakes in my articles I have tried to establish the veracity of my sources. Now point me to some of your articles please.

  • Clark

    It seems very ironic that my comments are dismissed as “supporting the US government” while Pilger is “highly respected”, though my comments advance an outlook very similar to Pilger’s.

    Maybe logic and consistency themselves are just US government lies, and truth is simply whatever conspirologists happen to be saying this month.

    • John Goss

      Pilger is highly respected not because he found the 9/11 report worth reading but because he is a first-class journalist. I have not noticed the similarity of your comments to the dogged reporting of Pilger and because you may have made a similar statement over 9/11 I could hardly think of him sharing your views on Ukraine and Russia for example.

      • John Goss

        “In February, the US mounted one of its “colour” coups against the elected government in Ukraine, exploiting genuine protests against corruption in Kiev. Obama’s assistant secretary of state, Victoria Nuland, personally selected the leader of an “interim government”. She nicknamed him “Yats”. Vice President Joe Biden came to Kiev, as did CIA Director John Brennan. The shock troops of their putsch were Ukrainian fascists.

        For the first time since 1945, a neo-Nazi, openly anti-Semitic party controls key areas of state power in a European capital. No Western European leader has condemned this revival of fascism in the borderland through which Hitler’s invading Nazis took millions of Russian lives. They were supported by the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA), responsible for the massacre of Jews and Russians they called “vermin”. The UPA is the historical inspiration of the present-day Svoboda Party and its fellow-travelling Right Sector. Svoboda leader Oleh Tyahnybok has called for a purge of the “Moscow-Jewish mafia” and “other scum”, including gays, feminists and those on the political left.

        Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States has ringed Russia with military bases, nuclear warplanes and missiles as part of its Nato Enlargement Project. Reneging on a promise made to Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev in 1990 that Nato would not expand “one inch to the east”, Nato has, in effect, militarily occupied eastern Europe. In the former Soviet Caucasus, Nato’s expansion is the biggest military build-up since the Second World War.”

        More here you will not agree with unless there has been a sea-change.

        • Clark

          No, I broadly agree with all of that.

          However, in isolation that article is somewhat unbalanced. That is not a criticism, for in the context of the media deluge against the Russian government, that article provided much needed balance. That is a different sort of strength from that of Parry’s article, which explored divisions and disagreements within the US government and its agencies.

          • Clark

            Sorry, I should clarify. I broadly agree with the section by Pilger which you quoted in your comment. I haven’t yet read the article you linked to.

        • Clark

          I don’t idolise the Russian government like you seem to.

          You seem to reduce everything to black-or-white; “it’s not this (propaganda) so it must be that (propaganda)”.

          The Russian government wasn’t blameless. They shouldn’t have imposed that trade embargo on Ukraine. Craig had it right, as usual:

          “”Ukraine is an accidental state and its future will be much brighter if it is a willing union. It needs not just Presidential and Parliamentary elections, but also a federal constitution and a referendum on whether any of its provinces would prefer to join Russia. That can give an agreed way forward to which Russia might also subscribe, and defuse the current crisis. It would suit the long term interest of both the Ukraine and the West. I fear however that the politicians will be too macho to see it.

          • John Goss

            While what Craig wrote might be true, in the light of history, we will never know. He wrote it before Poroshenko declared war on his own people. The people of the independent and self-declared republics of Lugansk and Donetsk will never go willingly back into the arms of those who tried to bomb them to kingdom come because of another US colour revolution. Yes, I do favour Russia over the west. And for good reason. The west is trying to do in Syria what it did in Ukraine. Only Russia made any attempt to save the Syrian people from another ME failed state.

          • Clark

            “The west is trying to do in Syria what it did in Ukraine”

            I agree, though I’d place the responsibility upon neocon Western elements and their Middle Eastern “allies” rather than “the west” as such.

            “Only Russia made any attempt to save the Syrian people from another ME failed state”.

            Primarily, the Russian government is trying to maintain its influence and retain its military assets in Syria, though I agree that the Assad regime is a far lesser evil than the neocon’s favoured alternative. It would have been better if the Russian government had given military support to Syria earlier, before the situation had deteriorated so badly.

  • KingofWelshNoir

    For the record, I happen to think Pilger is one of the greatest journalists of the post war years, and the suggestion that I have, or would ever, question his integrity is a scurrilous piece of misrepresentation.

    • Clark

      Integrity, noun. Wholeness; soundness; uprightness, honesty.

      On 10 April at 20:44, you wrote: – “I suspect he [John Pilger] doesn’t really want to go there because it would destroy in an instant a reputation he has taken years to build in the teeth of fierce criticism and hostility. I really don’t hold that against him”

      So it seems to me you’re claiming that John Pilger privately holds a different opinion than the one he makes public, ie. he’s dishonest; the part of his opinion that he makes public is not the whole.

      • KingofWelshNoir

        I’m not implying anything of the sort. ‘Not going there’ means not applying his time and energies to the quagmire of 9/11 Truth. It’s not the sort of thing he has done before, it’s clearly not an area or type of study he has great experience in, or authority about, and he no doubt has other projects to which he can apply himself with greater effect and greater authority. You have to pick your battles in this world. So he says he suspects 9/11 might have been allowed to happen, but admits he is not sure. That’s all. I don’t see how you can possibly infer from this that he privately holds, or that I so assert, a different view to the tentative one expressed in his quote.

        • Clark

          I’m glad you recognise that 9/11 “Truth” is a quagmire. It has become a quagmire because much of this “Truth” is actually bullshit, and that situation has come about because of the conspirologists’ convention of never holding each other to account, and attacking anyone who does of “supporting the government story” or of being some kind of agent for The Conspiracy.

          I know I keep banging on about this, but if I lower my guard it’ll all break out again, as I’ve seen happening for years and years. So I shall keep going on about it until a few other people recognise the problem and start working to overcome it.

          • Kempe

            ” how do they do it? ”

            Fully functioning bullshit detectors is how.

            The conspiracy theory around Katyn was that the Nazis did it. Some people still hold to this view despite evidence to the contrary. Likewise Holocaust denial, moon landings, mercury in vaccines, Sandy Hook etc etc 9/11 conspiracy theories fall into the same category.

            ” It seems more likely that he (Pilger) simply doesn’t believe them. ”

            Oh I don’t doubt that for a second but he doesn’t waste time or risk his reputation by engaging in debate trying to convince Truther’s that they’re wrong.

          • Clark

            Kempe, your comment seems to have been moved to the wrong place. Probably some secret agent did it, to make it look like you can make mistakes!

        • Kempe

          Like many serious commentators Pilger avoids conspiracy theories for fear of damaging his credibility by way of association. It’s also, as this thread shows, utterly pointless. It’s been described as trying to nail jelly to a wall. Even when provided with rock hard scientific proof that what they believe is bullshit Truthers won’t budge from the conviction that they’re right and the rest of the world wrong.

          • KingofWelshNoir

            The problem you’ve got Kempe is the pages of history are stuffed with conspiracy so some conspiracy theories must be true, therefore it can hardly be irrational or even pointless to investigate them. In fact, it would be irrational to assert that they are all false. Do you do that? Or do you believe some may be true? in which case you are also a conspiracy theorist.

          • Bobm

            Could someone enlighten me?

            What is a “conspiracy theory”?

            Is it such a theory, that
            -The Katin Massacre was Stalin’s work?
            –the CIA engineered the overthrow of Mossadegh and Allende?
            —the Suez invasion of 1956 was the result of a secret pact?

            C & K seem to be able to recognize one as soon as they see one, and boldly oppose, in the name of Truth.
            Do they have psychic powers?
            If not, how do they do it?

          • Clark

            Kempe – “…Pilger avoids conspiracy theories for fear of damaging his credibility by way of association”

            Evidence please. It seems more likely that he simply doesn’t believe them.

          • Clark

            The term “conspiracy theory” is crap due to its ambiguity. Depending, it could be (1) a theory about a conspiracy, (2) a derogatory label applied by some party to a theory they wish to discredit, or (3) a rumour based mainly upon bullshit.

            Problematically, each usage has either some validity or utility. Usage (1) can’t be eliminated without modification of the English language, but usage (2) would lose its utility if (3) had no validity.

            The trouble is that (3) does have validity. Those who propagate and amplify rumours based on bullshit routinely propose immensely powerful conspiracies to (a) account for discrepancies in the flaky evidence they present (“The Conspirators covered it up!”) and (b) to dismiss all who challenge the proposed rumour (“You would say that because you’re part of The Conspiracy!”). It is therefore valid to call them “conspiracy theorists”.

            Both arguments (a) and (b) are untestable propositions, and also circular reasoning; two classic logical fallacies. Both have to be called out and rejected, because if either is allowed to pass, any and every proposition can be “proven” to be both true AND false, so all logical discourse collapses. As Kempe rightly points out, like trying to nail jelly to a wall.

  • fwl

    24 US insurers have commenced claims in a NY court against Saudi banks for circa 4billion dollars alleging their actions facilitated 9/11.

      • Clark

        John, that’s one of the most foolish comments you’ve ever made. It shows that you don’t even understand that you don’t understand. And no, I’m not saying that Israel wasn’t involved, but I doubt you’ll understand. Think about courts, and how they work on evidence that can be presented.

        Saudi Arabia effectively suffers from a “split personality”. Saudi Arabia and Israel cooperate on some matters, and are in opposition about others. Both want Syria and Iran overthrown, for instance. Both are central to the neocon project. Both are allies of the US.

        The situation is highly complex. I don’t blame you for not understanding; I certainly don’t, and I doubt that anyone really does. But to be so sure of something in a situation of virtually universal confusion is to rush in where angels fear to tread.

        • John Goss

          It’s that kind of supercilious (I know everything and everybody else is thick) comment that annoys me abour you. You could work out why if you were capable.

          • Clark

            John, I should have written more clearly. I wrote:

            “I don’t blame you for not understanding; I certainly don’t, and I doubt that anyone really does.”

            I meant, I certainly don’t understand the relationship between Saudi Arabia and Israel. But at least I know that I don’t understand.

            Considering the various events that comprised and surrounded what we call 9/11, and that various parties apparently had various elements of foreknowledge, I expect that various parties were responsible for various different aspects of the whole, a sort of “bandwagon effect”. Certainly there were multiple parties that would have considered such attacks to be potentially advantageous.

            But “it benefited Israel, therefore Israel did it” is hopelessly simplistic. 9/11 benefited violent and authoritarian parties the world over.

          • John Goss

            “But “it benefited Israel, therefore Israel did it” is hopelessly simplistic. 9/11 benefited violent and authoritarian parties the world over.”

            Only you are saying that. I never said it. Read the comment again. That’s why I get annoyed. Only the lawyers will benefit from money most likely donated to the families to pursue this through the courts.

          • Clark

            I was referring to your overall argument rather than that comment in isolation. You blame Israel but you’ve never presented any valid evidence against Israel, and I believe you’ve linked to (or at least expressed approval of) Chris Bollyn’s arguments, which amount to no more than “9/11 benefited Israel, therefore Israel did it”.

    • Clark

      Fwl, thanks for the info, and apologies for the diversion; it’s amazing how much chaff can be kicked up with so little effort.

  • John Goss

    Here is evidence both seismic and witness that before the collapse of WT1 three distinct explosions took place. There was a fourth and subsequent explosions immediately before the collapse and during the collapse. They shook the ground.

    The science behind this list of reasons why fission nuclear weapons were the most likely cause I cannot confirm.

    However there is little doubt that concrete floors were turned to dust as in a pyroclastic event and something must have caused it. Judy Wood is correct over this but she is not alone. We hear no explanation of the dustification from those who support the official explanation (non-truthers). For a while now I have been leaning towards nuclear events being the cause of the twin towers’ destruction and of course Newtonian science does not allow for a top-down collapse without resistance from the storeys below.

    Note: Advice to those not prepared to attempt explanations of the two links please don’t take an isolated sentence (the last for example) and go off at a tangent. I’m sick of that!

    • Clark

      “We hear no explanation of the dustification from those who support the official explanation”

      Not true. Shall I post the references? I do wish you’d actually examine the “official explanation” before making claims about it.

    • Clark

      “Newtonian science does not allow for a top-down collapse without resistance from the storeys below”

      There was resistance from below. That’s why the Twin Towers’ collapses proceeded at less than free-fall.

      Again, I do wish you’d actually examine the “official explanation” before making claims about it.

    • Clark

      (Grief…). John?

      “Here is evidence both seismic and witness…”

      The video linked from (a notoriously unreliable site) claims audio evidence ie. carried through the air, not seismic, ie. carried through the ground.

      But in any case the video does not establish its claim that the first sound transient (at minus 17 seconds) was followed by an up-welling of dust from ground level. And if you listen carefully to that transient, you’ll hear a growing rumble leading up to it, unlike an explosion.

      The witness testimony consists entirely of brief quotes removed from their context; without finding and examining all the sources it is impossible to tell if they even refer to the same moment. That would take hours!

      The whatreallyhappened article refers to mainstream news reports that a truck loaded with explosives had been stopped and two or three men arrested, and goes on to state:

      “The news broadcast leaves it unsaid that the men arrested were Israelis. […] …the only people driving explosive laden trucks around New York on 9/11 were Israelis.”

      I have never seen any report that the men arrested were Israelis. The article concludes with four “see also” links:

      – Netanyahu claimed to have predicted WTC attacks
      – The Five Dancing Israelis Arrested On 9-11
      – The 9/11 Reichstag Fire
      – 911, Iraq, PNAC, All roads lead to Israel

      The article’s obvious intent is to slant any convenient evidence to try and blame the destruction of the Twin Towers on Israeli operatives. And I’m sorry to say, John, that I think this is why you linked to it. The article’s quality is absolutely dreadful, but worse, it’s the sort of thing that both gives rise to and justifies the claims that “9/11 conspiracy theories are anti-Semitic”.

      John, would you be willing to learn the techniques of critical thinking? Repeating and embellishing articles like this is entirely counter-productive, and could cause observers to suspect your motives.

    • Clark

      John, the second article you linked to at is nearly as dreadful. However, it takes you minutes to post a couple of links to bunk sites and concoct some embellishment around them, whereas it takes me hours to examine and reply to the linked articles point-by-point. This is why bunk spirals exponentially; those repeating and amplifying bunk enjoy something like a 60:1 advantage, despite the paucity of the evidence-base they all draw upon – echo-chamber, just like mainstream “churnalism”.

      I implore you to learn and apply the techniques of critical thinking.

      • Clark

        But just to make a start and show how it should be done:

        1) – “China syndrome” applies to nuclear reactors; it does NOT apply to nuclear explosions.
        2 &3) – Ignores other heat sources.
        4) – False.
        5) – Verify? Other reasons possible in any case.
        6) – Also consistent with cooling the wreckage.
        7 & 8) – Also consistent with public safety, and preserving evidence.
        9 to 13) – Also consistent with very high kinetic energy dissipated when collapses hit bottom.
        14) – Also consistent with aircraft impacts and resultant explosion.

        …and so on…

        • John Goss

          “I implore you to learn and apply the techniques of critical thinking.”
          “But just to make a start and show how it should be done:”

          There you go again. You just want to listen to yourself for a minute, just for a minute. Trying to talk down to people is not friendly and is more likely to alienate them than win them over. We know you have your precious theories set in stone but that is no excuse for rudeness. Do you think that with an MPhil (just below a doctorate) I do not know how to think critically? And you with that supercilious know-it-all I’m right attitude feel able to discount anything that does not fit your ridiculous mindset over 9/11. I was tempted to leave your remarks without comment but that would probably make you think you had won some kind of victory.

          Thinking critically and analytically means looking at more than one point of view.

          “The science behind this list of reasons why fission nuclear weapons were the most likely cause I cannot confirm.”

          Bearing in mind what I said to begin with I have no intention of trying to fully defend somebody else’s work. However, as you are so dismissive, there are one or two things you appear not to have taken into account.

          “1) – “China syndrome” applies to nuclear reactors; it does NOT apply to nuclear explosions.”

          China Syndrome is a fiction, a metaphor, or more specifically hyperbole. It cannot happen either with an underground nuclear device or the meltdown of a nuclear power station. The ludicrous theory suggests that a nuclear meltdown would power its way from China through the core of the earth (itself burning close to the temperature of the sun) and come out in the United States. A metaphor can be applied to anything the author chooses. It is not out of place in this instance.

          “2) inability to quench ground zero heat with water
          3) red hot/molten steel at ground zero”

          To these you say “Ignores other heat sources” without any mention of what heat sources you are claiming might be be capable of producing red-hot and molten steel. I am sure I am not alone in wanting to know what these alternatives are. Meanwhile this might help you explain. Take a look at the embedded video, and that is six weeks after the demolition.

          “4) missing core columns from ground zero (vaporized during destruction)” Clark’s critical thinking on this: “False.”

          It certainly appears not to be false from the footage. Only somebody with poor eyesight or an agenda would try to say otherwise. The inner-core remaining after the building has collapsed just turns to dust even before the pyroclastic cloud rises to consume it.

          I think that’s enough but might I suggest it is not my analytical brain that is in question. I have said many times I discount nothing. Here is another theory (nuclear again) suggesting that in fact there may have been nuclear power-sources built under the twin towers.

          • John Goss

            Apologies. I do not have an MPhil I have an MLitt. Senior moment. I was going to do an MPhil but changed to an MLitt.

            I know Clark does not care about qualifications because he knows better than more than 5,000 qualified Engineers and Architects, Pilots, Firemen, Lawyers and others. Clark’s surname is Kent the alter ego of Killick. He will save the world from all these overqualified experts. Otherwise people might start believing in fiction and not what your government tells you to believe.

        • Clark

          John, I don’t care what your qualifications are, you’ve not been thinking critically. The evidence is right here on this thread, over and over again, such as your assertion of hologram aircraft which ignored that light travels in straight lines and there’s no way of projecting darkness. “Oh it’s some secret technology”; yeah, or the faeries, or Godzilla, or any other untestable proposition (look it up).

          “China syndrome” is a colloquialism for meltdown, which can’t happen with nuclear weapons because they, you know, sort of, er, EXPLODE, which scatters the nuclear fuel all over the place so there’s no longer a critical mass to support fission.

          If you think for five minutes (yes, I know it’s not as exciting as finding anti-Israeli bunk) you can come up with half a dozen other energy sources. Do you really want me to demonstrate how unimaginative you are by listing some?

          You linked that video before claiming that steel “turned to dust”, and I answered you, but you probably didn’t bother reading my reply (apparently, you rarely do). That’s a view of the core remnant, or “spire”. See the pinnacle of the building on the right? Look at the core remnant level with its top. See that “shoulder”, the wider section from which the thinner structure extends upwards? Well keep your eye on it, and you’ll see it start to fall. The thinner, upper piece must fall at the same rate (d’uh). And it leaves a dust trail, which blows away. Wow! A dust trail! I mean, it’s not like there was loads of dust on everything, is it? It was everywhere else in Manhattan, but there’s no way a core remnant would trail dust as it fell, not if John Goss wants to “prove” the use of some far-fetched secret Israeli weaponry, eh?

          “I don’t mind people acting like idiots so long as they don’t mind me taking the piss out of them”.

          Wise up, John!

          • John Goss

            Waffle, waffle, waffle. None of it holds true. Dust trail bollocks. Go to Specsavers. Most of the dust that covered New York was created by the pyroclastic cloud which by that time had not reached what you call the “spire”. I should be interested in what others see. But I doubt anybody is reading comments here any more.


            Your fixation with Israel and trying to slur my name over it is as transparent as your ‘critical thinking’. Yes, give us a laugh, tell us what other great heat sources you think might have been responsible for such intense heat and molten steel the fireman talks of in the video six weeks after the event. I’ll start you off – a volcano.

            You do make yourself sound ridiculous. But it is what we’ve come to expect from the Clark and Kempe Show.

            I will say it one more time. Unlike you I do not discount anything that makes some sense. As to the holograms I am convinced that some of the footage was tampered with and nobody has explained away the graphic artist who confessed to having created some of it. You just ignored that with one of your many promises to come back to it.

          • Clark

            Other energy sources? How about the several hundred vehicles parked in the sub-levels? Ever seen a car on fire? We occasionally get insurance arson where I live; the aluminium in the engine melts into a pool. What about all the oil in the thousands of viscous dampers? Several floors of the Twin Towers were on fire, but that leaves about ten times as much unburned material from the other floors; lots of fuel there. 1.2 million rounds of ammunition from the firing range under WTC6? Racks and racks of lead-acid batteries from uninterruptable power installations for servers? And what happens to the temperature if you take a volume that’s hot and compress it? C’mon, engineering professional.

            My eyes are far from perfect, but understanding the basics of optics I know what’s wrong with them, and in this case it makes no odds. That video was captured from broadcast in NTSC format – resolution of less than 800 by 575, and slowed down as well. You’re seeing what you WANT to see, John.

          • John Goss

            “That video was captured from broadcast in NTSC format – resolution of less than 800 by 575, and slowed down as well. You’re seeing what you WANT to see, John.”

            This is higher definition. There must be dozens of solid objects disappear to dust in this short clip. Concentrate on one large chunk of material falling horizontally very slightly to the right of the tower’s central corners. If it does not turn to dust it is overtaken by dust (which would only likely fit your kind of physics, not mine).


          • Clark

            There are lots of pieces of debris leaving trails of dust. Of course, it any actually turned to dust we’d expect them to decelerate and disperse, increasing in volume – the former object’s speed would decrease to that of its trail, since it would all be equally subject to the same movement of air. But the falling pieces just continue to fall.

            Just more Goss bunk.

  • fwl

    Fact that claims are brought by insurers indicates purpose is to reimburse insurers for monies already paid out to families and property owners and not to compensate families, but I don’t know details and have only read short report on Reuters.

    • Clark

      Yes, the insurance companies will be trying to recover some of the money they paid out. The company lawyers will have started preparing the cases as soon as the 28 redacted pages were released. Hopefully, the court cases will bring further information to public view.

      Maybe the civil suits in London will be revived, too.

    • John Goss

      It does not really matter fwl it is an unwinnable case. It is unwinnable because defence lawyers are going to question the government reports. When they find them to be full of holes they will realise that they have an unreliable witness in the dock. Discredit the witness and you discredit the case. End of.

      • Resident Dissident

        Of corse this is exactly what Stalinists do – they seek to discredit the witness rather than the evidence. Vyshinsky would be proud of you.

        • John Goss

          “Of corse this is exactly what Stalinists do – they seek to discredit the witness rather than the evidence.”

          What part of reports “full of holes” did you miss in yet another ad hominem in trying to label me a Stalinist instead of addressing the comment?

          • Clark

            I’d disagree with Resident Dissident about his specific criticism at 10:24, but for months you’ve been trying to discredit me instead of addressing my arguments.

          • Resident Dissident

            You’re the one asking the lawyers to discredit the witness rather than the evidence put forward – surely playing the man rather than the ball is exactly what an “ad hominem” means.

        • Clark

          RD, almost. JG did say they find the witness unreliable because the evidence is full of holes. But I agree that John gravitates towards ad-hominen arguments.

          There might be trouble in the court cases because so much of the US case is based on confessions extracted under torture; something like a quarter of the 9/11 Commission Report.

          But John didn’t say that. He never does. He much prefers bunk science.

  • Clark

    So who respects Robert Parry, the journalist that exposed the Iran-Contras CIA operation in 1984?

    But a few basic points can help decipher the confusion: Perhaps the most important is that although it’s rarely acknowledged in the mainstream U.S. media Israel is now allied with Saudi Arabia and other Sunni Persian Gulf states, which are, in turn, supporting Sunni militants in Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State. Sometimes directly, sometimes indirectly, this Israel-Saudi bloc sustains Al-Qaeda and, to a somewhat lesser degree, the Islamic State.

    – In other words, what has most outraged Americans has been the behavior of these Sunni extremists, from Al-Qaeda’s 9/11 attacks to the Islamic State’s beheading of helpless hostages and religious minorities in Syria and elsewhere. And, the principal backer of this Sunni extremism has been Saudi Arabia where wealthy prince-playboys buy leniency for their licentious behavior from the religious ulema (or leaders) by financing the extreme Wahhabi teachings. [See’s “The Secret Saudi Ties to Terrorism.”]

    Christ! They’ve ALL been got at! John Pilger, Robert Parry, Craig Murray, Julian Assange, Noam Chomsky, Amy Goodman – all working for or blinded by Israel! Only the Enlightened Truthers can see it!

    Oh poor House of Saud! Traduced! Oh how I weep for you!

    • fwl

      It was to have been the House of the Hashemites not the Saudis, but America complained that Britain & France were up to their old colonial tricks and with the assistance of Kim Philiby’s father they put in their man, the House of the Saudis. How much trouble have those Philbies caused.

      • Clark

        Fascinating; I’ve never encountered this before. Please link more information. How do the Al ash-Sheikh fit into this?

    • John Goss

      “Christ! They’ve ALL been got at! John Pilger, Robert Parry, Craig Murray, Julian Assange, Noam Chomsky, Amy Goodman – all working for or blinded by Israel! . . ”

      There you go again with your fixation over Israel. But worse. You are ascribing to people views that you do not know they continue to hold. Craig’s blog post is more than 7 years old. Other links for which you make these claims are years old. Support for the government line has been dwindling in proportion to the rise in engineers and architects who question the official view.

      I should be interested to learn whether Craig has modified his views in the light of the Richard Gage paper you refuse to address for some reason.

        • Clark

          “She no longer seems to want to talk about 9/11”

          And can you blame her? Obviously, she’s ended up being heckled by too many knuckle-heads, just as Chomsky and Assange have. There are multiple videos of such Truthers disrupting these speakers meetings and book signings etc.

          Gage’s “paper” is a lecture. It’s polemical more than educational (remember my e-mail exchange with AIA? Apparently he registered this “educational course” under some name other than A&E9/11″Truth”). I don’t particularly disagree with most of his points about Building 7, but he leaves out the few balancing possibilities. NIST should release all their data.

          Whatever happened to Building 7 implies nothing about the Twin Towers, which anyone with any sense for mechanics can see collapsed under gravity – not that John Goss will ever engage in any maths with me.

          • John Goss

            There was a BBC2 programme about gravity recently. Early in the programme a ball bearing was dropped on a tile from a low height. The tile did not break. Then the ball bearing was dropped about arm-high above the tile. It broke. It would, wouldn’t it.

            But what your stupid physics is asking people to believe is that a tile itself would break the next tile and the next tile progressively to the base. The tile itself covers a much greater surface area than a ball-bearing and may not even break the first tile when dropped from arm height. Try it! For an experiment get a dozen bricks trap five tiles at brick intervals. Then drop another five tiles together on top of them and see what happens.

            Your cock-eyed theory, ignoring Newton’s conservation of momentum energy, suggests it would break all tiles to the fifth and last. It is absolute nonsense. Why you keep peddling it is beyond me. But then I am an engineer, a real engineer, and I understand how things work.

          • Clark

            OK, “real engineer who understands how things work”, see if you can stick with an argument to its conclusion. I bet you can’t.

            Please start by linking the Judy Wood argument which you accept, which calculates collapse times for the Twin Towers based upon conservation of momentum.

          • John Goss

            Why don’t you do the experiment instead and save us all time and the headache of having to listen to your skewed anti-Newtonian physics which Nikko tore apart, what he/she could understand of it?

          • Clark

            The experiment with tiles is inappropriate for a number of reasons, but that’s considerably more complicated due to problems with scaling. We can come back to it; disposing of Wood’s fake physics is simpler.

          • Clark

            The experiment is irrelevant due to scaling problems. Firstly, you can’t increase either big G or the acceleration due to gravity g to compensate for the smaller vertical gap between tiles (ie. there’s less distance over which to accumulate kinetic energy). Also, relative to the inter-floor gap of the actual Twin Towers, the tiles are far too thick, or too closely spaced. If you spaced them out further, you’d also have to scale up their area, but by how much is complicated. Further, the bricks present far more cross-sectional area in the horizontal plane than the steel frame of the Twin Towers did. For all these reasons and others, FEA is better than small-scale experiments.

            Of course, a competent engineer would already know all this, and wouldn’t try to mislead readers by presenting an inappropriate experiment. But honesty isn’t your strong point, is it?

            Why aren’t you supporting Judy Wood’s physics? Is it because you noticed that I debunked it earlier?

          • Clark

            At 14:40, I predicted that Goss would not argue in support of Judy Wood’s fake physics. An hour and a half, seven more comments by Goss, and one complete Earth orbit by any LEO satellite later, and so far I’m still right.

        • Resident Dissident

          adverb: allegedly
          “used to convey that something is claimed to be the case or have taken place, although there is no PROOF”

      • Clark

        “I should be interested to learn whether Craig has modified his views in the light of the Richard Gage paper you refuse to address for some reason.”

        Well he continued to maintain his overall opinion of 9/11 when we discussed it about six months ago. He’d been reading comments on this thread and was interested in what I’d found regarding the lightweight construction of the Twin Towers.

        Still interested?

        • John Goss

          Yes, I’m interested to learn from Craig what he believes in the light of the growing number of engineers and architects who are calling for an inquiry into Building 7, probably seen as the easiest of the three demolitions to model.

          That is not to say I will agree with what he says.

  • Clark

    Don’t worry, The Donald will save us. With his Muslim ban (except Saudis) and his missile strikes on Syria – oh, no, some mistake there… He’d better watch out that The Bad Guys don’t have him assassinated…


    • Resident Dissident

      Let us never forget that John Goss is a proven pusher of fake news – he posted a video of ballot stuffing in the Russian Parliamentary elections claiming that it was in the US democratic primaries. He did not even have the intellectual honesty to apologise once his fakery had been exposed. He will simply chose whatever aspects of “experts” views that suit his own and discard those that do not. He has no respect at all for scientific methods his intention is to abuse science for his own political ends.

      • John Goss

        From one who allegedly has a friend who lost someone in 9/11 but does not want an investigation into how that alleged death was caused, or by whom.

        • Resident Dissident

          No allegedly about it – there have been plenty of investigations into the causes of 9/11. Now its time for an investigation into purveyors of false news such as yourself.

          • Clark

            “there have been plenty of investigations into the causes of 9/11”

            True, but our wonderful “free press” is not so keen to expose the neocon’s ongoing connection to the extremists.

            And Goss and his ignorant ilk make the the neocon project that much easier by failing to realise when they should STFU.

      • Resident Dissident

        The evidence here and elsewhere would suggest that you bang on about it rather more.

        • John Goss

          You see blame Israel in everything where there is no intent. It was blame lawyers if you could work it out. For a superhero you sure have a long way to go. 🙂

        • Clark

          Well the link seems insufficient, so I’ll quote your own words in full, liar Goss:

          “They have no chance of winning [against Saudi Arabia]. They would be better off suing Israel”.

          Israel. Nothing about the US or lawyers.

  • Nikko

    According to the critical thinkers on this thread the near freefall collapse of the Twin Towers is explained by:

    1. Shoddily built structures using light-weight components.
    2. Bad design necessitating the use of dampers
    3. As a result of 1 and 2, the damage caused by the planes resulted in the collapse of the internal floors, which falling vertically downwards produced lateral forces of sufficient strength to rip the outer supporting structure apart and hurl big chunks 100s of feet sideways.
    4. So obvious that calculations not considered necessary other than the potential energy of the building which is declared sufficient

    The only thing missing from that explanation is that the dust was not concrete but common or garden dust since the shabbily build and badly designed buildings have not been hoovered in 50 years. It took 109 pages of comments to get there but thank goodness for critical thinking.

    • Clark

      I’ve described my understanding of the collapse sequence in considerable detail. Just lie about it, and then we can have another 109 pages of comments.

      You and Goss can’t even apply Newton’s laws, or you’d reject Judy Wood’s fake physics at a glance.

      • John Goss

        Judy Wood’s physics is sound. However I’m sure she, with her degrees in mechanical engineering, is really worried that she is being called out by superhero Clark (Kent) Killick and neo-physics.

        • Clark

          Judy Wood’s physics is fake. Link to the page. Anyone who knows Newton’s laws can recognise the problem instantly.

          • Clark

            I’m taking it up with you. For months you have been accusing me of anti-science and ignorance of Newton’s third law of motion. You claim Judy Wood’s physics is sound, but I can show you a direct contradiction of Newton’s third law. Please link to the page which you endorse.

      • Clark

        But your problem with me is the same as those of Nikko and John Goss, which is that I DO understand. I understand that lightning will conduct through aluminium preferentially to air rendering your aircraft destruction scenarios fanciful nonsense, and that the Earth is spherical but that microwaves travel in straight lines making HAARP incapable of affecting the weather thousands of kilometres away.

        Sorry, there’s no nice way to say this. You’ve forgotten which of your own thoughts​ were tenuous conjecture and based further reasoning upon them as if they were sound, and now fantasy is proliferating unchecked by reason. Sorry, but someone had to tell you.

      • John Goss

        “Sorry, but someone had to tell you.”

        I’m sure Trowbridge mus be thinking thank God it’s only Clark telling me. 🙂

      • Trowbridge H. Ford

        I have no aircraft sceanioros, ontly the fact that the suicide bombers crashed them into the WTC et al.

        And the lens that HAARP creates is way up in the atmosphere, like the satellite that NSA has up over Australia’s Pine gap, so gets round the earth’s sphere. Then there is its heating up the ocean in front of strophic storms to convert them into cyclones. Also land for avalanches,floods, and droughts.

        Have never been upset by your insults, only when you engage in lying about me.You are only using Wikispooks assertion without evidence, that I do so, only comments by trolls like you You expect me to provide evidence which is readily available for every claim I make.

        Hope I don’t descend to commenting again to you.

      • Clark

        “Strophic storms”?

        “Strophic form (also called “verse-repeating” or chorus form) is the term applied to songs in which all verses or stanzas of the text are sung to the same music”

        How oddly appropriate!

      • Clark

        Trowbridge, sorry to tell you but you descended to commenting to me again (see 14:51).

        If the NSA had a satellite over Pine Gap at 14:51, it’s over the opposite hemisphere about now. One low Earth orbit takes about ninety minutes. By the time the satellite has completed the loop, the target of surveillance has rotated away beneath. Consequently, each LEO satellite gets about two minutes of viewing of a particular target in each several hour period. But of course you knew that…

      • Trowbridge H. Ford

        Seem obliged to respond to your nonsense again.

        The satellite over Pine Gap is a stationary one which can receive Russian microwave messages 24/7.

        Stop jabbering away, and do some research, like on Wikispooks which had me write a documented article about the assassination of Owe Barschal in light of Iran-Contra, though it doesn’t mention it about my work, preferring to note complaints by loons like you about my alleged conjectures.

      • Kempe

        For a satellite to be in a geo-stationary orbit it has to be above the equator. Pine Gap is nowhere near the equator.

        HAARP was shut down in 2015.

      • Clark

        The only way a satellite can remain over the same point on Earth’s surface is by being in geostationary orbit, which is a circle directly above the equator. It is therefore impossible to station any satellite over Pine Gap, which is some 24 degrees south of the equator.

        Geostationary orbit is some 36,000 kilometre up. Broadcast radio waves decrease in intensity in accordance with the inverse square law – doubling the distance decreases signal strength to one quarter, tripling the distance decreases signal strength to one ninth, and so on. Secret reception technology can do nothing about this; it’s a law of nature. Low Earth orbit (LEO) starts 160 km up, so being in geostationary orbit decreases signal strength by about (36000 / 160)^2 ie. to about one fifty-thousandth relative to LEO. Not exactly optimal.

        Microwaves are directional, so if the Russians want to avoid such eavesdropping, they just need to redirect their microwave dishes.

        You should write to the NSA and explain how they’re wasting US taxpayers’ money through their ignorance of physics.

        (Hello Kempe; I see you beat me to it!)

      • Clark

        Trowbridge, my apology; I posted the above in the wrong place. “Liar liar” was intended for John Goss. You’re just deluded, not a liar.

      • Trowbridge H. Ford

        Not you too Kempe.

        Dr. Helen Caldicott wrote extensively in Missile Envy about the TRW satellites over Borneo which beam down microwaves from the USSR and China after they are sucked up like a vacuum cleaner for Pine Gap. (p. 127)

        And anyone who believes anything the US government is saying about what is going on with HAARP is loony. Allegedly it’s restarting this year after going off line in 2015.

        Don’t have time to write NSA, just emailed Leon Panetta for his reasons for trying to kill me when he was Clinton’s Chief of Staff, and Obama’s DCI.

    • Kempe

      Nothing new.

      I can’t get past that bloke telling his credulous audience that steel is a very fire resistant material. So every building standard across the world that demands comprehensive fire proofing on steel buildings is wrong…

      • John Goss

        Steel is very fire-resistant. Ever ignited it? But what it does do is retain heat once its temperature has been raised significantly. The cladding is an extra precaution under regulations for occasions when the temperature is raised above a certain level which may compromise the steel. In the case of Building 7 it would only apply to the floors level with or possibly above which the fires, virtually burnt out at the time they pulled the building, took place.

        • Clark

          Until you demonstrate intellectual honesty and competence in basic physics, you should shut up.

          Link to the page of Judy Wood’s that you endorse.

          • John Goss

            They did not build the twin towers out of wire wool. They were rigid. I challenged you earlier to model what would happen with tiles secured by bricks and set one brick apart. You refused to take on the challenge you said because the scaling would be wrong. Actually it would not make a lot of difference. Here Newton’s laws of motion are explained in very simple terms for those unable to get their heads round them.


            If you can’t understand this I suspect your batteries are running down. Kryptonite to the rescue perhaps. 🙂

          • Clark

            You asked if I’d ever ignited steel. So I took some steel wool and set a flame to it: it burns but goes out. In chemistry class at school we quite often ignited steel wool to test for increased oxygen concentration.

            The Twin Towers could not have been “rigid” or they wouldn’t have required thousands of viscous dampers to prevent occupants getting seasick.

            “…you said because the scaling would be wrong. Actually it would not make a lot of difference”

            That demonstrates either incompetence or dishonesty.

            I already know Newton’s laws, thanks, but if you’re endorsing Judy Wood’s “billiard ball model”, then it seems that you don’t.

          • Clark

            OK Mr Goss, here’s where you proclaimed your belief in Judy Wood’s fake physics:


            …and told me to “think like an engineer instead of a Jack-of-all-trades”. And here is Judy Wood’s fake physics, which, with your “engineers expertise” you endorse:


            And here is what she says on that page:

            “Looking at the data, we take the conservative approach that a falling floor initiates the fall of the one below, while itself becoming pulverized. In other words, when one floor impacts another, the small amount of kinetic energy from the falling floor is consumed (a) by pulverizing the floor and (b) by breaking free the next floor”

            So her “billiard ball model” assumes that the falling floor assembly pulverises on impact, but the stationary floor assembly gets broken free.

            Whatever happened to Newton’s EQUAL and opposite reaction in this, Mr Goss? And why isn’t the momentum of the falling floor assembly conserved?

            Answer; because it’s FAKE PHYSICS. All the maths in the appendix is right; but Newton’s laws are IGNORED.

            And why didn’t you notice this, Mister “engineer”? Why does a “jack-of-all-trades” like me have to correct you???

          • Nikko

            Clark, you ask Whatever happened to Newton’s EQUAL and opposite reaction in this, Mr Goss? And why isn’t the momentum of the falling floor assembly conserved?

            Well, to answer your question nothing untoward happened to Newton’s equal and opposite reaction because Newton’s third law is not incompatible with asymmetric damage to the two bodies. Whether this assumption is realistic is a different question (Judy Wood answers this question) but in the context of modelling the pancaking theory it is perfectly valid.

          • Clark

            The forces were equal and the bodies taken as identical, so there is no justification for the asymmetry.

            But disregarding conservation of momentum makes it fake physics in any case.

          • Clark

            Wood’s “billiard ball model” is ludicrous. I’m amazed at the inappropriate credence it has gained, apparently just because she posted it on a website. Her theory implies that a vérinage demolition would induce a building to slowly subside like a soufflé.

            Her deceptions are right out in the open. For instance, she writes:

            ‘WTC2, demonstrating there is little to no free-fall debris ahead of the “collapse wave,”‘

            to go with this picture:


            And yet a little down the same page posts the following picture, which clearly shows free-fall debris well ahead of the internal collapse wave:


            She’s obviously trying to show people their own gullibility.

          • Nikko

            We are talking about Case 2, in which Judy Wood presents an idealised simple model of the collapse whereby the falling floor impacts a stationary floor and in the process the falling floor gets pulverised and the stationary floor is released from its supports to start its own fall. If the building is split into 11 sections of 10 floors each then the collapse time would be over 30 seconds and Judy Wood rightly concludes that this gravity only mechanism is not what destroyed the Towers. The law of conservation of momentum has not been violated.

            You are getting your knickers in a twist over this but if you believe that Judy Wood got it wrong and gravity did bring down the Towers and pulverised the concrete, then present the equations how this would have been achieved. It must be several months since you promised to do so and we are still waiting.

          • Clark

            Wood sets up a straw-man argument. There is no possible reason to assume that a collision of floors would completely pulverise the falling floor, while having the completely different effect upon the stationary floor of merely decoupling it from the frame. The former requires far more energy than the latter, in addition to contradicting the observation that most dust was produced as the collapses terminated.

            Having postulated this nonsense, she goes on to use it to calculate a collapse time which consequently, of course, is entirely unrealistic.

            Why even bother considering such nonsense any further? Oh, because you want to find an argument for demolition, no matter how convoluted. Well your obsession with following odd fads is not my problem, Nikko.

            But your lying is. We already calculated available energy from the top section falling at the rate measured by Chandler, and the energy was ample to decouple the topmost stationary floor assembly. The next collision down would involve this additional falling mass, so the available energy would be even greater. The accelerating internal cascade of destruction of floor assemblies is therefore accounted for. Accumulated kinetic energy is ample to account for the final pulverisation of the concrete.

          • Nikko

            Clark, you are waffling again. It is not Wood’s theory but one of the “official” theories and Wood is modelling it in a simple manner. There is nothing fake or wrong about that.

            Also what is not fake is your phobia of doing your own calculations in support of your theory. The one calculation and conclusion you did would be an embarrassment to an O’level physics pupil. Your energies would be better spent trying to understand and model your own theory rather than waste time imagining and inventing faults where none exist.

            Happy Easter!

          • Clark

            Wood’s fakery is clear to anyone with a little understanding of physics. She ASSUMES complete pulverisation of falling floor assemblies (in gross contradiction of observation) as an inadequate EXCUSE to DISCOUNT conservation of momentum.

            You know I calculated available energy because we went through it together. You wanted to discount the energy released by conservation of momentum, claiming that deformation of floor assemblies was somehow “external” to the floor assemblies.

            Your physics seems good enough so I can only assume that you’re intentionally trying to mislead less technical readers. My Easter would be happier without liars corrupting it.

        • John Goss

          I hate to have to say this to you Mr Killick but if Judy Wood’s maths were in question, or even her methodology, some real physicists would have been quick to point it out.

          You cannot get away with saying “I already know Newton’s laws” when you clearly cannot apply them in practice either to tiles or anything else. This man applies the laws both theoretically and practically. You might at least give him 8 minutes of your time. But as usual I suspect, you will skip it because you know better. Shame really.

          • Clark

            Stop waffling. Why do you popularise a theory that contradicts both Newton’s third, and conservation of momentum?

          • John Goss

            It’s you who waffles with your neo-physics. The video above explains conservation of momentum physics which sad to say you don’t understand and, despite being a jack-of-all-trades, refuse to model.

          • Clark

            I’ll issue my challenge again. Let’s visit some university physics or engineering departments together. You can present Judy Wood’s paper, and take their word for it instead of mine. Or even your former bosses, John.

            Physics is physics, and that page is pure BUNK. Resident Dissident has you pegged:


            “[John Goss] will simply chose whatever aspects of “experts” views that suit his own and discard those that do not. He has no respect at all for scientific methods his intention is to abuse science for his own political ends”

          • Clark

            OK, I see you’ve switched to a new “expert” with yet another YouTube vid. Intellectual honesty demands that if you’re abandoning Judy Wood’s “billiard ball model”, you say so clearly.

            I’ll go through that vid and why it’s unrepresentative of the Twin Towers, but I insist that we deal with Judy Wood first, or it’ll just be back to haunt us like a zombie that will not die.

          • John Goss

            Why don’t you take a look at Jonathan H. Cole’s video regarding Newtonian physics and why the twin towers and building 7 could not have collapsed the way they did and still have obeyed Newton’s laws of motion. It’s not hard. It sure beats calling to your assistance someone with a known history of duplicity. I will say no more except to indicate that the way Resident Dissident and Habbabkuk used to troll me with Stalinist jibes is very similar to what you have been doing with Israeli comments. Trying to depict me as someone they would like me to be to fit their mindset rather than who I am. I did not say:

            “But “it benefited Israel, therefore Israel did it” is hopelessly simplistic. 9/11 benefited violent and authoritarian parties the world over.”

            But you tried to make people think I did. Now watch the video. Contradict it. Or keep quiet.


          • Clark

            I’ve already referred to that video in my comment above at 20:48.

            It doesn’t matter what Resident Dissident said or did in the past; you’re proving right what he said about you today by switching “experts” to achieve your goals. Your latest video contradicts Judy Wood, because it insists upon conservation of momentum which her billiard ball model violates. One thing at a time. Do you still endorse Wood? You can’t endorse both because they contradict.

            Oh, and you trolled Resident Dissident something rotten, too.

          • John Goss

            “Do you still endorse Wood?”

            Yes. It fits her theory.

            Now the video. I endorse that too. I am open-minded. You can’t buy that kind of fairness.

            I don’t endorse the Killick neo-physics though. Only the real stuff.

          • Clark

            How can you endorse both theories when one violates conservation of momentum, and the other relies upon it? Dishonesty or incompetence?

          • Clark

            Resident Dissident wrote

            “[John Goss] will simply chose whatever aspects of “experts” views that suit his own and discard those that do not. He has no respect at all for scientific methods his intention is to abuse science for his own political ends.”

            Endorsing two contradictory theories because both declare collapse of the Twin Towers impossible seems to confirm that perfectly.

          • John Goss

            I support them both.
            From the video which does experiments to show why the towers could not have fallen in the way they did without explosives.

            “Conservation of momentum is a fundamental law that cannot be broken.”

            Then it goes on to explain Newton’s law.

            It concludes:

            “Unlike most people the laws of nature cannot be fooled by the so-called experts even with all their funding and fancy equations.”

            From Judy Wood (apologies for the loss of formatting):

            “Conservation of Momentum:

            The amount of momentum (p) that an object has depends on two physical quantities: the mass and the velocity of the moving object.

            p = mv

            where p is the momentum, m is the mass, and v the velocity.

            If momentum is conserved it can be used to calculate unknown velocities following a collision.

            (m1 * v1)i + (m2 * v2)i = (m1 * v1)f + (m2 * v2)f

            where the subscript i signifies initial, before the collision, and f signifies final, after the collision.

            If (m1)i = 0, and (v2)i = 0, then (v2)f must =0.

            So, for conservation of momentum, there cannot be pulverization.


            If we assume the second mass is initially at rest [(v2)i = 0], the equation reduces to

            (m1 * v1)i = (m1 * v1)f + (m2 * v2)f

            As you can see, if mass m1 = m2 and they “stick” together after impact, the equation reduces to ,

            (m1 * v1)i = (2m1 * vnew)f

            or vnew = (1/2) * v1

            If two identical masses colliding and sticking together, they will travel at half the speed as the original single mass.”

            Now I cannot give you any more of my time. Either wise up or go to college.

          • Clark

            You quoted:

            “If two identical masses colliding and sticking together, they will travel at half the speed as the original single mass”.

            Yet her “billiard ball model” has each floor accelerate at g from rest in contradiction to this. To fudge this, Wood asserts:

            “Any pulverized material remaining over the footprint of the building will be suspended in the air and can’t contribute to a downward force slamming onto the next floor”

            Yet the “slamming into the next floor” is what is supposed to have caused the pulverisation! This also contradicts the Cole video you linked which at 0:30 states “It also doesn’t matter if the object is broken down into smaller pieces, […] conservation of momentum is a fundamental law of physics which cannot be broken”

            Yes, Wood cites the correct formulae – the very formulae that she disregarded to get the ~100 seconds collapse time out of her “billiard ball model”. That makes it fake physics.

          • John Goss

            Clark you clearly did not understand what she was saying and clearly did not try to understand. She gives more than one hypothesis for how the towers might have fallen using Newtonian physics, floor by floor, ten floors at a time and freefall, as I recall. Remember she is relating to an event already past which happened in almost freefall and what she is saying is that should not be the case. She gives a further scenario for collapse initiated before collapse wave.

            She says there could be pancaking or pulverisation but not both (presumably on the notion that if something is pulverised it cannot pancake). She models the pancaking for every ten floors and then a floor on floor model (which of course would take longer than ten floors at a time). There are helpful graphs of these would-be events in her hypotheses. The collapse initiated before the collapse wave (that is for me a controlled demolition).

            I cannot understand what you cannot understand. Her conclusion does not pass judgment.


            In conclusion, the explanations of the collapse that have been given by the 9/11 Commission Report and NIST are not physically possible. A new investigation is needed to determine the true cause of what happened to these buildings on September 11, 2001. The destruction of all seven WTC buildings and especially WTC1 and WTC2 may be considered the greatest engineering disaster in the history of the world and deserves a thorough investigation.”

            I did not need to go to this trouble. Now please explain away the video.

          • Clark

            I understand perfectly well what Wood wrote and it is bunk. She says that if one floor assembly falls onto another, the stationary one starts accelerating from rest at g. Wrong. The two would share momentum, so the combined initial velocity would be half of the impact velocity, and acceleration from that velocity would continue at g. She gets her ridiculously long collapse time by repeatedly and spuriously resetting the descent velocity to zero at every floor.

            But it wasn’t even just one floor assembly that initially fell. It was an eleven storey section of building in the more conservative case of WTC1; the velocity loss through conservation of momentum would be less than 10%

            Yes, there can be both an internal cascade of floor destruction, and pulverisation of concrete at the end. Remember conservation of energy? “Energy is neither created nor destroyed, merely changed from one form to another”. So the floor assemblies’ gravitational potential energy can become kinetic energy, and that kinetic energy can pulverise the concrete as it is expended at collapse termination.
            – – – – –
            The Cole experiments are unrepresentative. The early ones use solids, not hollow objects, but the Twin Towers were about 95% empty air space. In the later experiments with concrete rectangles, there is still far more support structure than empty space, only the first drop is representative of the real inter-floor gap, and the horizontal spans are far too short.

            John, you’re not going to understand the actual collapse progression unless you TRY to. You’re far too biased to maintain a sufficiently open mind. Try imagining one of the Twin Towers scaled down 100:1 for a start; the components all end up so thin. Then imagine your scale model in a centrifuge to restore the gravitational potential across its reduced height.

          • Clark

            Wood has put so many clues on that page; she has a Ph.D so they have to be “deliberate mistakes” – and yet you continue to fall for it, John. Look at this one:

            ” For one thing, that energy can only be spent once”

            Law of conservation of energy:

            “Energy is neither created nor destroyed, merely changed from one form to another”

            A big, flashing red light that she’s presenting fake physics. Then there are her contradictory comments about photographs, which I documented here:


            She’s obviously putting out fool-bait, same as Chandler.

          • John Goss

            Clark said:

            Look at this one:

            – ” For one thing, that energy can only be spent once”

            Law of conservation of energy:

            – “Energy is neither created nor destroyed, merely changed from one form to another”


            Your ignorance grows by the hour. Judy Wood’s theory is that the towers were pulverised to dust, if you are aware of it. I guess not. The energy to pulverise a concrete floor and turn it to dust would have to be massive. Once its state is changed to dust which she says hung in the air long after the towers fell it cannot impart kinetic energy on the floors below. So her theory is that if one floor has been pulverised, because there is an equal and opposite reaction there must have been some pulverisation of the floor which did the pulverising. That energy cannot be used twice for the same purpose. For example the heat which raises the temperature of water changing its state to steam cannot be used twice or you would have free gas and electricity. Get it yet?

            I tried to help you and realise now it is futile. You did not understand Dr Wood’s Billiard Ball theory. And even when it’s been explained to you there are several hypotheses you still don’t understand. You don’t understand Newton’s third law but claim in your defence that Wood, a professor of engineering, does not understand it. You are a total idiot as far as 9/11 is concerned, you keep trotting out an outrageous theory that there would be no resistance, or almost no resistance, from the floors below and even after you have been shown how it works with hammer and nail, with billiard balls and crashed cars you still cannot understand it. Nobody with any real reputation to protect would agree with your nonsense. I am fed up with it. I am fed up too with you trying to draw me into a hologram game. I have said that I believe some of the footage was tampered with. I am fed up with you mentioning my name in my absence.

            I tried to help you understand but in return I got insults. I would not go to any college or university with you because when it was explained to you how stupid your ideas are I would be embarrassed when you called the professors liars, something you seem very fond of recently. You will get no support from any engineer or physicist for what I have been affectionately calling your neo-science (even though I knew all along it was pseudo-science). Sorry it had to be said. I realise you have issues but you bring this condemnation on yourself. You have no respect for people wtih a science background and think that a couple of minor school certificates entitles you to challenge the academic world with nonsense. Although you cannot understand Judy Wood and you blame scaling as regards experiments you refuse to do yourself. No steel-framed tower has fallen in near freefall ever without the use of explosives. But superhero Killick will show these engineers and physicists a thing or two.

            Learn Newton’s law of consevation of momentum energy and then learn to understand it, as Judy Wood does, and you will see what is wrong with the Killick doughnut physics. I’m out of here.

          • Clark

            Of course I’m aware of her theory. It contradicts the observation that the vast majority of the dust was produced at the END of the collapses, only a small proportion being produced DURING them.

            “Once its state is changed to dust which she says hung in the air long after the towers fell it cannot impart kinetic energy on the floors below”

            You’ve just contradicted the law of conservation of energy, one of the most fundamental laws of physics there is. And you call me ignorant?

            “her theory is that if one floor has been pulverised, because there is an equal and opposite reaction there must have been some pulverisation of the floor which did the pulverising”

            No it isn’t. Her straw-man description of progressive collapse is that the falling floor completely pulverises itself (massive energy required), while merely freeing the stationary floor from its vertical supports (relatively tiny energy required). She simply concocts this imbalance out of her arse, and then declares it impossible, which of course it is – that’s how straw-man arguments trick the unwary.

            “the heat which raises the temperature of water changing its state to steam cannot be used twice”

            Oh really? So how does a steam locomotive impart kinetic energy to the carriages?

            “You don’t understand Newton’s third law but claim in your defence that Wood, a professor of engineering, does not understand it”

            I understand it well enough to know that Wood contradicts it. It’s not MY fault she’s an idiot!

            “you keep trotting out an outrageous theory that there would be no resistance, or almost no resistance, from the floors below”

            Of COURSE there wasn’t much resistance from the FLOOR assemblies; supporting the weight of the building wasn’t their function – the perimeter and core did that. IF you were an engineer, you would understand the concept of differentiated function, like, the back wheels of a car don’t do the steering, and a steel rim without a tire doesn’t have much grip; the tub of a washing machine holds the water but the drum is full of holes. Jeez…

            “Nobody with any real reputation to protect would agree with your nonsense”

            Really? Let’s go see a professor together, or even some of your former colleagues. I’m up for it. Oh…

            “I would be embarrassed when you called the professors liars”

            Leave responsibility for my behaviour to me, OK? It’s YOU that doesn’t want to go, and I think that’s just your excuse to avoid scrutiny.

            “Learn Newton’s law of consevation of momentum energy”

            Momentum is m times v. Kinetic energy is m times (v squared). Momentum isn’t energy.

          • John Goss

            I accept your challenge. I do not know Professor Hawwash. But he is a professor of Civil Engineering at Birmingham University. I know somebody well in the Engineering Department and asked him if he knew Professor Hawwash and he did not.


            I should mention that he has been in the news recently.


            Not knowing him I will email him and copy you in. To be honest I doubt he would entertain a meeting knowing the commitments of academics. But he might. Are you up for it?

          • Clark

            Yes, I’d be happy to meet him. I’d prefer a meeting, but if he can’t spare the time we could possibly proceed by e-mail.

            I’m surprised. You must really believe the stuff you’ve been supporting. Honestly, Judy Wood’s Billiard Ball Example is a hogwash straw-man argument bearing no resemblance to real progressive collapse.

            I note that Professor Kamel Hawwash’s publications all concern administration, management and finance; none in physical sciences or engineering. How did you come to choose him?

          • Clark

            You didn’t pick him because he’s a known demolitionist, did you? You didn’t find his name at A&E9/11″Truth”? Because that would be cheating… But it matters little if we’ll be visiting the engineering department, because there will be plenty of graduate students about.

          • John Goss

            No I have done a search on Professor Hawwash’s name and 9/11 and not found anything. So I will email him. I will think about how to word the email. You should do the same and when we have a compromise we will let him know.

            A meeting would be best if he is in agreement because he is certainly not going to want to get into an email exchange here and there then follow-up emails through non-acceptance of what he says. I really doubt he would want to get involved but if you are convinced of your dispute over Judy Wood’s “fake physics” and the practical experiments of Jonathan H. Cole, if he accepts, come on up here.

          • Clark

            OK, I’ll have a think about how to ask; I’d like to keep it general so it remains a physical matter rather than introducing politics.

            Note the next comment down which I inserted to reduce scrolling…

        • Clark

          John, I’ve replied to an earlier comment to step out of the nesting a bit, so there’s less scrolling to reach a “Reply” button. I hope I’ve worked it out right!

          Look, there’d be no need for all this if you’d just discuss technically instead of repeatedly resorting to ad-hominen. I have sound physical reasons for declaring Wood’s BBE to be bunk. For a start, it seems to imply that the following collapses couldn’t possibly happen this fast:

          Remember, Wood’s BBE says nothing about material of construction, so it should apply equally to concrete as to steel.

          • John Goss

            “Kinetic energy is m times (v squared).”


            It is actually mass times velocity squared divided by 2. And it is related to momentum, though conservation of momentum and conservation of energy are separate entities. Kinetic energy can also be written as 1/2 Mv where M equals Momentum.

          • Clark

            Yes, sorry; I forgot the 1/2 term. Would momentum be the differential of KE with respect to v? Sorry, I’m rusty.

            Calculus; Newton again. I’m not sure he did all he’s famous for himself; I seem to remember that he tended to appropriate credit from others, and was rather litigious about it. Master of the Mint as well, I think.

          • Clark

            Yes. The result if you differentiate KE with respect to v. It’s the “with respect to v” bit I’m asking about.

          • glenn_uk

            “Would momentum be the differential of KE with respect to v?”

            Yes. Momentum = mv. KE=1/2 x m x v^2

            Derivative of KE(v) = 1/2 x m x (2v) = mv .


            I wish John and Clark would treat each other a bit more nicely.

          • Clark

            Glenn, thanks. With respect to v, right? Intriguing. Intuitively, I can see why volume of a sphere differentiates, with respect to radius, to surface area, and why the circumference of a circle is d(area)/dr. The time derivative relationships of displacement, velocity and acceleration are obvious, of course, but this one looks a little deeper.

            I put up with a lot from John. I think I get more than I give, but of course I would say that.

          • glenn_uk

            Clark: Yes, it’s the derivative wrt velocity.

            What’s a bit less intuitive about this one than the others is that you’re just working with one fundamental dimension(*) at a time when integrating from radius to area and then volume of, say, a line, a circle and then to a sphere. When you have a twin fundamental dimension value which is velocity (distance and time, actually LT^ -1 ), or a three-dimension property such as force (MLT^-2) and you’re integrating wrt that, it’s obviously going to be much more complex, and far less intuitive.

            Differentiating can be less intuitive than integrating too, even though the calculation is more simple for the differential, and is also always taught first. At least, integration seemed that way to me.

            If you plot time X against speed Y, for any function of V, the area under the graph will be the distance covered. The distance is going to be the integral of the function of V. Sorry if all of this is basic to you, but maybe someone will like it…

            Similarly, the energy put into achieving the momentum of a moving body is going to be the sum of all the little ergs of energy which caused increases in velocity which got it to that point. So the integral of momentum is bound to give you the energy that took it there, which of course it will still retain!


          • Clark

            Yes, area under a velocity – time curve is distance; that’s an intuitive one. I’ll have to sleep on the momentum – KE relationship. It’ll bug me until it comes into focus. I know that momentum is conserved, of course, but right now I don’t see why.

            Physics, eh, John?

          • glenn_uk

            Clark: “I know that momentum _is_ conserved, of course, but right now I don’t see _why_.

            Where else would it go? It’s not immediately intuitive (to the likes of me, anyway) why a body having double the speed of another identical body would have not twice, but four times the energy. And where that energy goes when two bodies collide – the momentum is preserved, the energy is not.

            But do the dimensional analysis, and you’ll find that’s exactly what has to happen.

          • Clark

            “It’s not immediately intuitive why a body having double the speed of another identical body would have not twice, but four times the energy”

            Well energy = force times distance, but if we apply a force to a mass, velocity is proportional to time. Distance is the area under the velocity – time graph, which is triangular, so 1/2 times final velocity times elapsed time. Damn, it’s in there somewhere; the velocity – time graph is obviously an area which is where the squared term comes from… Sorry, it’s late… need toast…

          • glenn_uk

            What I really mean, though, is this…

            A 1kg object is going at 10m/s. KE = 1/2 mV² = 1/2 x 1 x 10² = 50 joules.

            It hits (and perfectly adheres to) another 1kg object. For obvious reasons, they will both now travel at 5m/s, thus preserving momentum.

            But the KE now = 1/2 mV² = 1/2 x 2 x 5² = 25 joules.

            So what happened to the other 25 joules? Ahh, it’s been _perfectly_ converted into sound, heat, and maybe light, radiation, or structural damage (or change) to the objects. Energy can change its form, but will be preserved. Momentum is always just preserved.

          • Clark

            Beautiful, init?

            It usually helps to work out how things evolve over time. In this sort of interaction, that means considering impulse, force times time. Of course, the time aspect can be ignored once the interaction is complete, so it’ll be found to cancel out. But I’m off to bed, to dream of stable and unstable events.

          • glenn_uk

            Clark: “Beautiful, init?

            It is indeed – and this is the very nature of science. It’s not a matter of “Well, my source over here says something different”, or “My opinion is that it’s 200 joules lost” – and that’s just as valid. No. It’s not a matter of opinion, or argument, or point of view, or “alternative facts” – it just _is_.

            25 joules will be predictably and perfectly converted into other energy than kinetic energy every single time, and everyone is positively invited to undertake their own experiments to confirm it.

            You now know that 25 joules of energy is going to have to be taken away, if the system is to be worked repeatedly (as in cooling the brakes of a vehicle, for instance).

            This is how things are engineered in the real world – consistency, proof, science. This is why aeroplanes stay in the sky for as long as they need to, why cars, refrigerators, lifts and computers work, because they are engineered according to consistent principles.

            But it’s kind of hard work to understand these things, so a lot of people stick to the “that’s just your opinion!” line – and they actually think this is how scientists work too – that it’s simply a matter of who’s “facts” you choose to believe.

          • John Goss

            I see your compilation of verinage demolitions of non steel-framed buildings did not contain any of these. The guy with a lump hammer at the beginning is an absolute nutter but he does confirm that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.


            I have read Glenn-uk’s comments and see nothing in conflict with the theoretical billiard ball theories of Judy Wood. Like he says everyone is entitled to do his or her experiments. Jonathan Cole did his. I don’t need to repeat them because they confirm my opinion of why the twin towers could not have fallen the way they did.

          • Clark

            John, firstly, material of construction doesn’t appear in Wood’s BBE, so why did you mention it?

            Secondly, can momentum just disappear?

          • John Goss

            “John, firstly, material of construction doesn’t appear in Wood’s BBE, so why did you mention it?”

            The answer is contained in this comment of mine.


            “Secondly, can momentum just disappear?”

            glenn_uk explains it at April 20, 2017 at 02:06 above. Here is further help.


          • Clark

            I did look up Trofim Lysenko. What a dispiriting story of anti-science being promoted for purposes of political convenience.

            But it reminded me that Stalin meant “Man of Steel”. Rather appropriate for John Goss; he’s always on about steel (when he isn’t vaguely insisting upon Newton’s third law, which he then ignores if it gets inconvenient), and how the Twin Towers couldn’t possibly have collapsed because of their steel structure.

  • Bobm

    It’s difficult to know how far Craig M is clocking posts, here;

    but he would do well, imho, to consider this post

    which generated dismissive but steadily trivial rebuttals from the usual suspects.

    Over to Craig.

    • Clark

      What do you hope can be proven from the collapse of Building 7? What chain of responsibility could it help to establish? In case you hadn’t noticed, one possibility I entertain is that a military demolition team brought it down that day in a classified operation. If that’s so, its collapse will probably tell us very little about the rest of 9/11.

      • John Goss

        But there is a chance you’ll come round to the rest of 9/11 because you were very reluctant to accept a controlled demolition of Building 7 a year ago.

        • Clark

          No I was NOT. I have always considered deliberate destruction of WTC7 to be a possibility. However, there is also evidence against demolition which you lot never consider, and there IS an alternative explanation for the rapid descent of the visible outer façade which does not require explosives; however, it is tenuous.

          • Clark

            “…the rest of 9/11”

            That just illustrates your thinking perfectly. You know almost fuck all about 9/11, and your self-knowledge is about as good; you can’t even see your own binary blinkers – “if-it’s-not-this-then-it-must-be-that”, “either he accepts three nuclear demolitions and hologram planes or he must want to suck George Bush’s knob”.

            Honestly, I despair.

          • Paul Barbara

            @ Clark April 16, 2017 at 01:31
            I have no belief in ‘hologram planes’, and I doubt John has either.
            But ‘video fakery’ is a whole different kettle of fish.

          • Clark

            John Goss has professed his belief that the aircraft may have faked using secret military hologram technology. He cited a DoD promotional leaflet wish-list, drawn up pre-2000 of what they hoped for by 2025. It didn’t occur to him that light travels in straight lines unless reflected, and that there’s no conceivable way of projecting a darker image onto a lighter background such as the bright blue sky on 9/11.

            Basically, he’ll promote any idea, no matter how absurd, so long as it contradicts a widely held belief about 9/11. That’s his idea of “Truth”.

            Aircraft hit the Twin Towers. It was witnessed by thousands, captured in scores of videos, scattered aircraft debris all around the site, knocked huge aircraft-shaped holes in the buildings’ perimeters, and ignited two enormous fireballs. It’s beyond reasonable doubt.

            All sorts of unlikely things can be read into grainy NTSC-format videos; shot, distributed and broadcast in a frantic rush, then transcribed from dodgy home VCR machines and posted to YouTube in fifteen year old compressed video formats.

            A very few shots seem to have been modified by the TV stations before broadcast, but that sort of thing goes on routinely. I remember in about 1984 I was visiting a friend who lived on Dirkhill Road in Bradford. At the T-junction at the top was a wall, with graffiti which read “It’s a Mean Old Scene”. My friend got back from the shop with a Sunday paper. “Look!” he said, holding up a feature article about Bradford, with a photo of the wall with the graffiti. “Wow, we’re in the paper” us visitors said, or something to that effect. “No, no”, he exclaimed, “come outside and look”. We all followed him out. He held up the photo with the actual scene beyond it; “look at the lamp post”. They’d moved the image of the lamp post so it didn’t cut through the middle of the graffiti:



          • Clark

            “A very few shots seem to have been modified by the TV stations before broadcast…”

            I think I remember what I saw, but don’t go asking me to find it again. It think the camera operator of one of the helicopter shots panned the camera tracking the second aircraft approaching WTC2, but due to the aircraft’s small area, hazy atmosphere, and low contrast it didn’t show up on the footage (NTSC really was even more crap than PAL). I think a TV company might have taken the liberty of superimposing another aircraft so they had something worth showing on their evening news.

    • Clark

      Paul, excellent link. The section on confessions forced using torture is damning:

      Moreover, the type of torture used by the U.S. on the Guantanamo suspects is of a special type. Senator Levin revealed that the the U.S. used Communist torture techniques specifically aimed at creating false confessions.

      – And according to NBC News:

      – Much of the 9/11 Commission Report was based upon the testimony of people who were tortured

      – At least four of the people whose interrogation figured in the 9/11 Commission Report have claimed that they told interrogators information as a way to stop being “tortured”

      – One of the Commission’s main sources of information was tortured until he agreed to sign a confession that he was NOT EVEN ALLOWED TO READ

  • Clark

    Uzbekistan and the Rendition Program:

    1998 and After: CIA Instigates Co-operation with Uzbekistan against Taliban and Al-Qaeda

    Beginning in 1998, if not before, Uzbekistan and the CIA secretly create a joint counterterrorist strike force, funded and trained by the CIA. This force conducts joint covert operations against the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. [Times of India, 10/14/2001; Washington Post, 10/14/2001; Vanity Fair, 11/2004] In February 1999, radical Muslims fail in an attempt to assassinate Islam Karimov, the leader of Uzbekistan, leading to a crackdown on Uzbek militants. CIA counterterrorism head Cofer Black and bin Laden unit chief Richard Blee see this as an opportunity to increase co-operation with Uzbekistan, and fly to the Uzbek capital of Tashkent to seal an agreement with Karimov. One hope is that a strike force will be established to snatch Osama bin Laden or one of his lieutenants. Karimov also allows CIA transit and helicopter operations at Uzbek air bases, as well as the installation of CIA and NSA monitoring equipment to intercept Taliban and al-Qaeda communications. The CIA is pleased with the new allies, thinking them better than Pakistan’s ISI, but at the White House some National Security Council members are skeptical. One will comment, “Uzbek motivations were highly suspect to say the least.” There are also worries about Uzbek corruption, human rights abuses, and scandal. [Coll, 2004, pp. 456-460]

  • Paul Barbara

    ‘A Government of Morons’:

    ‘It has become embarrassing to be an American. Our country has had four war criminal presidents in succession. Clinton twice launched military attacks on Serbia, ordering NATO to bomb the former Yugoslavia twice, both in 1995 and in 1999, so that gives Bill two war crimes. George W. Bush invaded Afghanistan and Iraq and attacked provinces of Pakistan and Yemen from the air. That comes to four war crimes for Bush. Obama used NATO to destroy Libya and sent mercenaries to destroy Syria, thereby commiting two war crimes. Trump attacked Syria with US forces, thereby becoming a war criminal early in his regime.

    To the extent that the UN participated in these war crimes along with Washington’s European, Canadian and Australian vassals, all are guilty of war crimes. Perhaps the UN itself should be arraigned before the War Crimes Tribunal along with the EU, US, Australia and Canada.

    Quite a record. Western Civilization, if civilization it is, is the greatest committer of war crimes in human history.

    And there are other crimes—Somalia, and Obama’s coups against Honduras and Ukraine and Washington’s ongoing attempts to overthrow the governments of Venezuela, Ecuador, and Bolivia. Washington wants to overthrow Ecuador in order to grab and torture Julian Assange, the world’s leading democrat.

    These war crimes committed by four US presidents caused millions of civilian deaths and injuries and dispossessed and dislocated millions of peoples, who have now arrived as refugees in Europe, UK, US, Canada, and Australia, bringing their problems with them, some of which become problerms for Europeans, such as gang rapes.

    What is the reason for all the death and destruction and the flooding of the West with refugees from the West’s naked violence? We don’t know. We are told lies: Saddam Hussein’s “weapons of mass destruction,” which the US government knew for an absolute fact did not exist. “Assad’s use of chemical weapons,” an obvious, blatant lie. “Iranian nukes,” another blatant lie. The lies about Gaddafi in Libya are so absurd that it is pointless to repeat them.

    What were the lies used to justify bombing tribesmen in Pakistan, to bomb a new government in Yemen? No American knows or cares. Why the US violence against Somalia? Again, no Americans knows or cares……’

    • Kempe

      1. Ships were not identical.

      2. Major items bearing Titanic’s works number have been found on the wreck.

      3. Titanic was under insured by a third.

      Further proof Truthers will believe anything that fits their world view without checking.

      • Paul Barbara

        Did you watch the docudrama? No, I thought not.
        1. It takes into consideration the ships were not identical, but virtually so.
        2. Major items, including one of the propellers, were switched, as were lifeboats and other tell-tale objects, according to the docudrama.
        3. ‘Titanic’s insurance was raised to £12,500,000 some five days before ‘it’ sank.
        How come the ‘Olympic’, which was virtually a write-off, suddenly was able to cruise happily on for a further 25 years?
        And again, a lot of First Class passengers cancelled their trip shortly before ‘a’ ship sailed, including people linked to the White Star line and the Banksters.
        Why did the ship not avoid the iceberg, which was visible for miles?
        Why did the California hang about, BEFORE the iceberg incident, in the vicinity?

        I could be wrong, but I suspect you just picked your ‘queries’ up from a debunking site.

        • Paul Barbara

          Looks like I got the Insurance and date taken out wrong; it was $5m, and taken out 14 days before the sinking, not 5 days as I said: ‘$5milllion insurance policy document for the Titanic reveals she may have only been covered for sea trials before fateful voyage as an afterthought by owners’:

          My hearing is bad, so I may have misunderstood some of the ‘docudrama’; I have ordered the book Clarke refers to below.

        • Kempe

          The upper decks on Olympic were open, on Titanic they were plated over. This is obvious from photos of the two ships.

          Not even virtually.

          Titanic’s works number, 401, appears on capstans, propellers and numerous other items that in 1912 nobody would ever expect anyone to see again after the ship was sunk so why switch them? It would have been a major job too, probably taken weeks.

          Titanic cost £1.5 million to build but was only insured for £1 million, the rest of the risk being borne by White Star Line. This came out at the inquiry so i don’t know where your figures came from.

          Olympic suffered minor damage in her collision with HMS Hawke, damage to one propellor and a hole that didn’t put her in any danger. Nowhere near being a write off.

          Bruce Isamy, White Star’s director sailed with the ship.

          Maybe they didn’t see the iceberg until it was too because it was night and therefore dark; just a thought. The lookouts also had no binoculars.

          California stopped because of the ice.

          • Paul Barbara

            @ Kempe April 16, 2017 at 17:20

            ‘..Olympic suffered minor damage in her collision with HMS Hawke, damage to one propellor and a hole that didn’t put her in any danger. Nowhere near being a write off…’
            That is contentious. There were obviously people who would have an interest in hiding the true scope of the damage, which anyhow may have been discovered some time after the collision.

            ‘..Bruce Isamy, White Star’s director sailed with the ship…’
            Yes, indeed; and he survived!
            ‘Titanic: The designer, owner, officer and lookout’:

            The article also says Second Officer Charles Lightoller says he was in the water ‘half an hour to an hour’ before getting on an upside down lifeboat; this was in the ‘docudrama’, but according to that, at the sea temperature prevailing he wouldn’t have lasted more than a few minutes. He also survived.

            Also in the article are statements from Frederick Fleet, one of the two lookouts in the crow’s-nest of the Titanic, he was the first man to see the iceberg that sank the liner. Strange, if the iceberg appeared the size of two tables together, it must have been a long way away when first sighted (so it being night was no problem to seeing icebergs). And the weird response he says he got from an officer when he reported the iceberg!
            He also survived.

            ‘…California stopped because of the ice….’
            I don’t know where you got that from, but they had to come up with some excuse as to why the California was loitering in the area before the ship in question hit the iceberg.

            As I said, I have ordered the book, and will be in a better position to answer your questions (hopefully) after I have read it.

          • Node

            Channel 4 screened a documentary about this last week. It claims new evidence to support a theory that when the Titanic left port, there was a fire burning out of control in one of its coal bunkers. It had started several weeks previously but financial problems in the parent company necessitated hiding the fire and not delaying the journey.

            A crewman’s diary which survived the sinking recorded that the fire then spread to another bunker. The only way they could get rid of the burning coal was to throw it into the boilers. By the time they regained control, at least two bulkheads were seriously damaged and they were running short of coal. The theory goes that the captain didn’t have enough fuel to detour or delay, hence it continued full speed ahead despite the warnings of icebergs.

            When the survivors reached New York, the company immediately shipped the surviving boiler room crew back to Britain, under orders to speak to no-one, and they told the enquiry that none had survived. The fire was mentioned at the enquiry but the transcripts show that the judge in charge went to some lengths to avoid discussion of it.

            The documentary painted a pretty convincing case … but it would, wouldn’t it. Who knows.


        • Clark

          Paul, you’d probably be wasting your money on that book. The works number on pieces from the wreck would seem pretty conclusive.

    • Clark

      Robin Gardiner (1998), Titanic: The Ship That Never Sank? Ian Allan Publishing. ISBN 978-0-7110-2633-9

      Criticism of the theory: “Olympic & Titanic – An Analysis of the Robin Gardiner Conspiracy Theory”:

      Or how about this one:

      “Some conspiracy theorists believe that the Titanic was sunk on purpose to eliminate opposition to the creation of the Federal Reserve Bank. Some of the wealthiest men in the world were aboard the Titanic for its maiden voyage. Several of whom including John Jacob Astor IV, Benjamin Guggenheim, and Isidor Straus were allegedly opposed to the creation of a U.S. central bank. All three men died during the sinking. Conspiracy theorists suggest that J.P. Morgan, the legendary 74-year-old financier who set up the investment banking firm that still bears his name, arranged to have the men board the ship and then sink it to eliminate them”

  • Clark

    Some names that might prove interesting. Richard Blee, Tom Wilshire, Michael Anne Casey; all of the CIA.

    2009 Interview of Richard Clarke, Chief Counter-Terrorism Advisor to the White House from 1998 to 2002:

    Includes some airport CCTV of three of the alleged hijackers. Known to the CIA, they had been in the US for a year before the CIA informed the FBI, one week before 9/11. Richard Clarke claims not to know why the CIA illegally kept this to themselves.

    The journalists call themselves SecrecyKills, but they apparently never released the whole documentary; just the interview above. They apparently had a website but it’s now gone, and the last entry on their Twitter feed was in 2013:

    • Paul Barbara

      @ Clark April 16, 2017 at 16:42
      There are no time stamps or other info on the ‘airport CCTV’. My understanding was there was no CCTV footage of any of the so-called hijackers at the airports the ‘hijacked’ planes departed from, but there was some from a connecting flight.
      That CCTV footage doesn’t look like a big international airport security checkpoint to me.

      • Clark

        The hijacked flights were domestic, not international. I don’t know offhand which airport that’s meant to be. I don’t even know if that’s meant to be them boarding a hijacked flight, or some other flight altogether. It might be possible to match the footage with photos etc.

  • Silvio

    Forensic engineer and Professor of Civil Engineering J Leroy Hulsey, University of Alaska, Fairbanks is to release the official findings from his 2 year investigation of the collapse on 9/11/2001 of the 47 story, steel framed, skyscraper WTC7.

    WTC 7 Final Report Due in August
    Today we are thrilled to announce that the final report of the WTC 7 computer modeling study, which is being conducted by Dr. Leroy Hulsey at the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF), is set to be released in August of this year, shortly before the September 11th anniversary.

    This report will be the culmination of more than two years of intensive modeling of WTC 7’s complex structural system, leading to an unbiased and transparent evaluation of whether fire or any other natural scenario could have caused the total, near-symmetrical, free-fall destruction of the building, as witnessed on 9/11.

    Unlike the studies conducted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and by firms working on behalf of Silverstein Properties and Con Edison, all of the data associated with the UAF study will be made public so that it can fully be scrutinized.

    This should be interesting, seeing as how Professor Hulsey has already stated that his research so far has shown that office fires of the intensity suffered by WTC 7 could not possibly have caused the type of progressive, global collapse of WTC7 witnessed on 9/11/2001. He has also declared in a public forum that if any of his students produced a report like NIST’s report (blaming the symmetrical collapse of WTC7 into its own footprint on structural failure due to fire induced thermal expansion) that student would be “flunked”. See the following video at the 11min mark:

    • Paul Barbara

      @ Silvio April 16, 2017 at 17:20
      Yes, very interesting indeed! I hope he has made copies of his research and given them to trusted associates, in case he has an ‘accident’ pre-August. I don’t think the ‘Perps’ and PTB will like this one bit.

        • Clark

          The Tory Attorney-General is trying to protect a former Labour Prime Minister against a prosecution for an illegal war. That’s the Labour Prime Minister who (supposedly) misled Tory MPs into voting for that war.

          Iraq is in ruins, ISIS runs amok and all Europe is plagued with terrorism. If “opposition” meant anything, surely the Tories would want Blair prosecuted for misleading them into voting for the war that started all this mess.

          • Clark


            Your letter to Alan Haselhurst MP

            Sunday 16 April 2017

            Dear Alan Haselhurst,

            Tony Blair, Jack Straw and Lord Goldsmith must be prosecuted.


            These most senior Labour ministers misled Parliament, causing Conservative MPs to vote for the Iraq war, subsequently found to be illegal by the Chilcot Inquiry. If they are not prosecuted, then responsibility falls to the Conservative MPs who, being in opposition, should have opposed their war but instead voted for it.

            Hundreds of thousands were killed and millions displaced. Iraq was devastated, ISIS runs amok in the power vacuum created, and all Europe is now plagued by terrorism. It is simply unconscionable that no one be held accountable. If this Conservative government continues to protect those responsible, democracy and change of government are as meaningless as the terrorists assert.

            Truth, Justice, Peace.

            Yours sincerely, Clark Killick

            23dda9589498f148a205/fb655d99f2efcda13796 (Signed with an electronic signature in accordance with section 7(3) of the Electronic Communications Act 2000.)

          • John Goss

            While I am with you on wanting to see justice prevail over Blair’s illegal war I do not think it will because the laws have been changed. Today courts meet in secret (for national security reasons) and the judge’s or judges’ reasons do not have to be made public. Welcome to Big Brother.

          • Clark

            Most court hearings are still public. Some deemed to be terrorism, and a lot of child custody stuff are closed hearings.

            I found a different view of the “spire”, which shows that it does not “turn to dust”:



            Try the comment feed page to see recent comments in chronological order so that you don’t miss any. Just view the following page; you don’t need to “subscribe”:


          • John Goss

            I’m not convinced by the NIST video release, not because I think it has been doctored or anything, but because it is from a different angle you cannot see what happens just before the pyroclastic cloud consumes everything. Anyway that is a good reason why there needs to be a proper investigation using independent engineers who might also ask the question whether explosives were used, engineers who might not be sworn to secrecy, like those on the NIST team were.

          • Clark

            Eh? You can see the thicker section of core that I called a “shoulder”, which means that you can see very nearly as much of it as in the clip you linked to. The “shoulder”, and the high, slender section above it fall together, and you can see the upper section until it drops out of shot. It leaves a trail of dust which drifts away left.

            Note also that the second part of the clip you linked is from the same angle as the NIST FOI release, but they cut the shot before the “spire” falls, which was really pretty sneaky in a clip entitled “Watch as Steel Turns 2 Dust”. You have to be careful because “Truthers” often cheat a bit like that.

          • Paul Barbara

            @ Clark April 16, 2017 at 21:33
            They’d be quick off the mark to prosecute Corbyn, but they’s have to do it on trumped-up charges!
            Bliar is ‘one of them’, a creep.
            After Bliar’s inaugural speech in Parliament, Ted Heath (yuck!) sidled up to him later and asked ‘What party are you?’.
            Bliar, the liar, replied ‘Labour’. Heath replied: ‘you sounded like a Tory’.
            And ‘New Labour’ talk about ‘entryism’!
            ‘Opposition’ between Tory and ‘New Labour’ is like ‘Opposition’ between Repugnants and Demoprats in the States – window dressing to fool people into thinking their votes can make a difference.
            But now in the UK, we have a REAL Labour Leader, which is why the Tories, ‘Blairites’ and MSM have got their knickers in a twist.

          • Clark

            Paul I agree. But us ordinary voters CAN still make a difference. Letters to MPs swung the vote and averted Cameron’s all-out regime regime-change of Syria – and that wouldn’t have worked without the 2003 Stop the War demonstration, so it did make a difference. Craig’s FOIA requests combined with the publicity of this blog forced the Fox-Werritty plot into the mainstream media. The “You and Whose Army?” mainstream ridicule of Cameron’s “50,000 moderate rebels” also started on this site. Don’t get so cynical that you don’t bother writing to your MP.

    • John Goss

      This photo appears to show one. You have to increase the image size and look to the right of the caterpillar truck. It is in the shape of the letter S. It would be how I would expect all the trusses to appear (distorted but intact).

      This area appears to be a corner that almost survived because top left you can see office furniture. Forensics departments would have a field day with this but to my mind something does not quite ring true. The date on the photo is 5 Nov 2011, and that is what I see when I go to history. Is this a mistake for 5 Nov 2001? Anyway there are a lot of unanswered questions which should be left to the experts.

    • Clark

      According to my collapse scenario, truss material should have ended up in that part of the debris pile within the perimeter; ie, truly within the buildings’ footprints. That’s where the big crush would have occurred as the internal collapses hit bottom, and where most pulverisation of concrete would have happened. The floor assembly debris would also have been pounded down into the sub-levels.

      Excellent photo; I think the main pile is within the original footprint. I expect there’s quite a lot of truss material in there because you can also see a lot of corrugated sheeting that the floor concrete was originally poured onto. The proportion of smashed concrete versus mangled metal is notably greater lower in the pile. I think the date is about right because they’ve managed to clear a flat area to work in.

      I see I-beams in the pile but no box-columns, which is what my collapse scenario predicts. There are some box-column outside the pile with their ends visible above the cab of the caterpillar, each apparently with four empty bolt-holes. This seems to confirm my scenario that the perimeter broke into sections by failure of the bolts.

    • Clark

      Anyway in answer to the willyloman / Scott Creighton article you linked to, he wrote:

      “The steel trusses and floor pans would […] probably shift one way or the other, connected together as they were, and lay pretty much flat, just dominoed as it were, together”

      I think that’s unlikely. There were many very heavy solid objects in the Twin Towers – substation-scale transformers, winch motors for lifts including goods lifts, escalator motors with gearboxes, racks of lead-acid batteries etc. – as well as around a 100,000 tonnes of concrete, all of which fell, chaotically I assume, attaining considerable velocity. I’d expect most of them to be substantially broken apart.

      “You couldn’t POSSIBLY miss them. They should be scattered all over Ground Zero”

      I disagree with that entirely. Visibly, the internal collapse proceeded ahead of the “peeling” of the perimeter (whether you invoke explosives or not), so the trusses would have been contained between the perimeter and the core, and that’s where they’d end up, all mangled in with what remained of the concrete, a lot of them pounded into the sub-levels. Most of them would be revealed only as the central mound and sub-levels were being cleared.

    • Nikko

      “I see I-beams in the pile but no box-columns, which is what my collapse scenario predicts.”

      Get real Clark, your “theory” predicts exactly nothing because you have not modelled anything. I’ve lost count of the number of times I challenged you to do some maths but you always run away. You have a phobia of equations as well as a split personality when it comes to scientific proof. You reject the work of those you disagree with and accuse them of fakery on spurious or insignificant points of detail, yet you expect us to accept your “theory” without any proof or calculations whatsoever. And when massive holes in your theory are pointed out to you, you ignore them.

      Your “theory” is just a description of your wishful thinking. It uses a lot of words but without maths words in physics mean nothing. Physics can do without words but it cannot do without maths.

      • Clark

        I described my overall collapse scenario here:

        and we went through a load of energy calculations; anyone interested may as well look around here:

        It’s not my fault you can’t get your spreadsheet to model progressive collapse. Very aggressive, aren’t you? Is it an attempt to intimidate me, or to impress others? Or is it just what you’re like to everyone?

        • Nikko

          ”and we went through a load of energy calculations;

          Hardly a load and they were very basic. Besides they showed that there was not enough energy to collapse the building.

          It’s not my fault you can’t get your spreadsheet to model progressive collapse. Very aggressive, aren’t you? Is it an attempt to intimidate me, or to impress others? Or is it just what you’re like to everyone?

          You are not in a position to know what my spreadsheet can or cannot do. But at least I have a spreadsheet, unlike you. Doing physics is not the same as writing an English lit essay – you can’t waffle.

          Whether you think I am aggressive or not is your call but at least I do not call people liars as is your frequent habit.
          Finally, I made it plain many times that I do not have a theory beyond not accepting collapses at 67% of g due to gravity only.

          Feel free to model your theory but until you have a convincing mathematical proof stop ramming down people’s throats.

          • Clark

            “Besides they showed that there was not enough energy to collapse the building”

            The potential energy of just the floor assemblies came to the equivalent of 67 tonnes of TNT!

            See? I only call people liars if they lie, and you just lied. Or are you saying you’d need more TNT than that?

          • Clark

            I’ve never bothered with spreadsheets because I’d rather hack software; if I want a numerical simulation I write one. I always said spreadsheets were pointless because they make people feel very clever by throwing numbers about quickly without understanding what they’re doing, and you’re proving me right. Straighten your tie and go hang out at the ExCel Centre with a load of other self-important gits.

            Understanding and correctly representing the physical system is more important than any amount of number-crunching. You already proved that point when you started your spreadsheet from floor 110 and then blamed me for the low energy figure you got out of it – the damage was at 98, not 110. You proved the same point when you accepted a straight line through Chandler’s data points, quoted a recession figure in justification, and then complained of the lack of jolts! I can see why you like Wood’s BBE; lots of numbers and nice curves so who cares if her physics is wrong?

          • Clark

            “at least I have a spreadsheet”

            See? That just sums it up completely. Delete the program; it’s rotting your brain. Get yourself paper and pencil; you don’t even need a slide-rule for this because the quantities of energy are all way in excess of what’s needed; if you can’t get a building down with 67 tonnes of TNT equivalent and a 400mph+ airliner to set it off, there must be something wrong with your assumptions.

          • Nikko

            Clark, you wrote a lot yesterday and I do not have the time for a comprehensive reply, but here is one example of the bollocks you write:

            “Pre-empting a question, why didn’t the top continue tipping towards the damaged side, causing the top to topple over and fall, leaving a stump?

            Answer; for the same reason that if you’re standing on ice and your feet slip out from under you, your bum lands nearly where your feet were – not enough grip to fall like a felled tree.”

            Except that the Towers did not stand on ice, but were securely anchored to the bed rock.

            You also write: ”I’ve never bothered with spreadsheets because I’d rather hack software; if I want a numerical simulation I write one. I always said spreadsheets were pointless because they make people feel very clever by throwing numbers about quickly without understanding what they’re doing, and you’re proving me right……
            Understanding and correctly representing the physical system is more important than any amount of number-crunching.”

            I do not know what you mean by hacking software in this context but you have never presented anything remotely suggesting that you modelled or otherwise tested your ideas.

            I use spreadsheets for numerical simulations because they are very quick and convenient. Your last sentence above shows ignorance and confusion: understanding and correctly representing the physical system is indeed important but it cannot be separated from the number crunching – the whole point of setting up a mathematical model is to crunch numbers to test and predict behaviour.

          • Clark

            “Except that the Towers did not stand on ice, but were securely anchored to the bed rock”

            The TOWERS stood on bedrock. The BITS THAT STARTED TIPPING stood on 1/3 kilometre slender vertical latices of wobbly steel and concrete, so wobbly they needed about 10,000 shock absorbers to prevent seasickness. I made that perfectly clear in the next paragraph which you didn’t quote. In your enthusiasm to support the wild suggestion of “controlled demolition” that went viral a over decade ago and became a fiercely promoted minority consensus (but is supported only by blatantly fake theory and a small amount of highly questionable and ambiguous evidence), you completely missed my point.

            Hacking is writing and modifying software to one’s own satisfaction. Significantly, it’s a discipline as opposed to a convenience measure; it requires testing with dummy data and other such measures because your own thinking can always mislead you, and programming teaches that the hard way. As was said in my time, the electronic calculator was the fastest way of making mistakes until computers enabled the process to be automated; spreadsheets seem to be a further “improvement” – “Computer says No!” ie. “O’Grady Excell says it’s this”. I’m 54. If you’re significantly younger, I forgive your fondness for spreadsheets; the world has been corrupted since the slide rule was a quicker alternative to log tables, and you’re not personally to blame for the lazy intellectual milieu you’ve become immersed in.

            There’s no need for numerical simulation in this case because whatever was left (mainly of the floor assemblies) at the tops of the stumps stood bugger all chance of arresting the enormous mass of the falling sections. You don’t need a spreadsheet. All you need is to understand that the most vital attribute of a building is it’s geometry; disrupt that and it will fail:


      • Bobm

        It bemuses me that regulars, here, are willing, endlessly, to argue the toss with Clark and co over technical matters, when..
        Clark seems to have no technical qualifications.

        I have none, either, but when I ventured a thought experiment on what might have been expected following a plane crash I got no sense of engagement whatsoever from Clark and co, even though my thought experiment was not difficult to grasp [the upper stories drop a bit, and then lodge on the lower ones, or fall off].

        This is an important thread, but why do people keep feeding Clark and co?

        • Paul Barbara

          @ Bobm April 17, 2017 at 22:50
          I get your point, but he’s hard to ignore; occasionally he comes up with a genuine criticism.

        • Clark

          Bobm, I’m sorry if I replied dismissively. I have ability in physics and I get irritated by some of the stupid stuff I’m expected to swallow. If I took my frustration out on you, I apologise.

          Firstly, what WTC7 did was very odd indeed, and one of my suspicions is that it was deliberately demolished. What follows concerns the Twin Towers only.

          Collapse initiation:

          For both of the Twin Towers there is video and photographic evidence of structural deformation – bowing – of the perimeter that gradually increased until failure occurred. In the case of WTC2, there was sudden buckling recorded immediately before failure:

          Yes I know there’s molten metal pouring out; it’s probably lead from a battery room just above that point, which was overlooked by NIST but convincingly documented by an independent researcher. If it was steel melted by thermite, you’d need to explain why it’s only happening at that point on the perimeter, and why it didn’t melt its way downwards instead of pouring out. It isn’t melting the aluminium cladding on the outside of the building, but if it were molten steel it would be hot enough to do so.

          There were also engineers on site who noted tipping of the tops of the buildings and warned Fire Department officers to order evacuation. The order was given but the “Handy-Talkie” radios were crap and most fire-fighters never received it.

          I can supply links to support the above.

          Structural failure is beyond reasonable doubt. I’m not saying that structural failure wasn’t assisted by explosives, but even if it was, that is nothing like pre-rigged controlled demolition of the entire building.

          Collapse progression:

          Subsequent collapse required no explosives. We’ll consider WTC1, since if WTC1 could fail this way WTC2 certainly would too, because the section above its damaged zone was bigger and heavier.

          The design of the Towers was a steel frame consisting of core and perimeter which together took all the weight. This frame supported the floor assemblies. All the floor assemblies were similar. The lower ones didn’t need to be stronger than the upper ones because they didn’t bear the weight of the building above. Each just needed to bear its own weight and the contents and occupants on that one floor, plus a margin for safety. Figures I’ve seen vary; each floor assembly could support between six and eleven times its own weight.

          The floor assemblies made up the great majority of the horizontal cross-sectional area. The perimeter columns made a small proportion of that area. So when the top section began to descend, nearly all of its weight was brought to bear upon the topmost stationary floor assembly, which was never intended to support such a load. The damaged zone of WTC1 was about eleven storeys down from the top, so the weight of the falling section was at least nine normal floor assemblies, one heavier “mechanical equipment” floor assembly at the top, the roof, plus the top section of perimeter, plus contents, hat truss, and ancillary equipment like motors and winches for lifts, air conditioning units, water tanks etc. – in total far more than a floor assembly could stand.

          Inevitably, the topmost stationary floor assembly would have been destroyed by the falling section. Its wreckage would start to fall along with the rest of the top section, so now there’d be an even greater weight of falling material, so the next floor assembly down was doomed too, and the next and the next and so on, the destructive falling weight increasing with each floor it entrained. Destruction of all floor assemblies was inevitable.

          The only thing that could have been strong enough to stop this, to cause “the upper stories drop a bit, and then lodge on the lower ones” was the vertical frame. This is what Bazant calculated and found to be insufficient. There are arguments that Bazant fudged his numbers, but even substituting in his opposition’s numbers, stopping the drop would have been very marginal. Yes, I have read both sides of that argument. But it actually makes no odds. Bazant had been conservative by considering the failure mode which required the most energy, which was complete buckling of all vertical columns, so of course a less demanding failure mode happened instead…

          The floor assemblies served another critical function; they steadied the perimeter, keeping it upright. With the topmost stationary floor assemblies destroyed, there was nothing to stop the descending mass shoving the perimeter outwards and just falling down within.

          Watch the collapse videos and you’ll see that’s what happened. The internal collapse of floor assemblies races ahead downwards, blasting dusty air out between the perimeter columns. Behind it ie. above it, following slightly slower, the perimeter peels outward like a giant banana. The internal collapse his bottom first, crushing all that falling concrete and a huge dust cloud wells up, obscuring the last of the outward collapse of the perimeter.

          So why didn’t the top fall to one side? Firstly, each Tower was sixty metre square, which is a long way to slide, especially seeing as both broken sections presented a load of jagged girder-ends towards each other. Secondly, consider how the support was distributed, looking straight down on the cross-section. The core has the strongest vertical strength. Next strongest is the perimeter. Weaker by more than an order of magnitude is the path through all the floor assemblies. If the top section had moved sideways it would have fallen through them, which is what happened.

          Thirdly, the core and the perimeter acted like guide-rails. The core survived longest; you can see the core remnants on the videos. If the upper section of perimeter retained any integrity at all during its drop, it would have had to remain around the core like a doughnut sliding down a stick. A US, torus-shaped doughnut, that is.

          As you can see, this description took me a long time to write. I also spent a long time reading physics papers, researching the structure of the buildings, and carefully watching the videos and visualising the movement of material hidden by the perimeter and dust. I worked it out for myself; it isn’t an “official explanation”. I’ve described it a number of times. And all I’ve ever had for my effort is abuse; ridicule, accusations that I don’t know Newton’s laws, accusations of serving the US government. The people who accuse me of incompetent physics actually accept either Chandler’s simplistic argument which “proves” that nothing can ever collapse vertically, or Judy Wood’s argument which contradicts conservation of momentum and Newton’s third law. My physics is good enough to state that with confidence. I’m sorry I get ratty. I’ll try to answer any questions you ask.

          • Clark

            Bobm, you wonder about my technical qualifications. I got nine O level, five at grade A, and two A levels including grade B in physics (should have been an A; I didn’t revise). All Oxford board. My state grammar school said there was only one other student they remembered that was as good at physics as me. They wanted me to take the Oxbridge entrance exam, but in my UCCA visits I found Cambridge too elitist and stuffy.

            I was accepted at QMC London uni for physics with electronic engineering BSc. Mucking about with pyrotechnic flash powder I burned a load of skin off my right hand just before exam time. Writing a bit slow I passed only three out of eight course units. I could have re-sat or skipped a year. However, a notice went up in the Physics department with all that year’s graduates listed and the jobs they’d already been accepted for, and 80% of them were going into the “defence” industry (like Kempe did, I suspect).

            I decided that the world didn’t need me as a physicist and went off and did sound and lights for amateur theatre etc. I’ve always fixed everything in sight. Now I’m broke, in rented accommodation and probably unemployable, while John Goss ridicules my from the security of having a decent corporate pension. But hey; I’ve been a moderator for Craig Murray, moved the book collection of a former Consul General of Shanghai, worked lights for Rory Gallagher, mixed monitors for Shirley Bassey, Richard Stallman’s a friend (and he’s changed your life more than you’ll ever realise), and Bob Calvert once cooked me breakfast.

          • Clark

            Pre-empting a question, why didn’t the top continue tipping towards the damaged side, causing the top to topple over and fall, leaving a stump?

            Answer; for the same reason that if you’re standing on ice and your feet slip out from under you, your bum lands nearly where your feet were – not enough grip to fall like a felled tree.

            It would have been different if the damage was at ground level, but balanced on top of the undamaged section, the act of tipping destroyed the support on the other sides so support was lost all round and falling took over. Try it. Balance a stick upright on your hand. Let it start to tip, but then quickly whip your hand downward out of the way. The stick continues to turn, but it doesn’t turn much before hitting the ground.

            In Newtonian terms, the ground is capable of supplying more reaction force than the 98-storey high stump of building.

            But ask yourself – if the Twin Towers were demolished, and tipping over would have been more convincing, they’d have rigged it to tip. That’s critical thinking.

          • Node

            Yes I know there’s molten metal pouring out; it’s probably lead from a battery room just above that point, which was overlooked by NIST but convincingly documented by an independent researcher.
            I can supply links to support the above.

            Yes please.

          • Node

            Clark, I have only checked out the first link you gave. A glance at the second seems to show it covers the same ground. On the strength of what I’ve read, I invite you to reconsider your claim that the existence of a lead battery room has been convincingly documented by this ‘researcher’.

            His entire theory rests on the supposition that NIST mis-identified the meaning of the initials UPS as “United Parcel Service” rather than “Uninteruptable Power Supply.” I wouldn’t have thought it would be hard to establish who actually occupied the relevant floor(s) at the relevant times, but he appears to have made no effort to do so. He supports his claim that a large number of lead batteries were situated on floor 81, by referencing documents that show the floor there was strengthened. However the same documents show that several floors above and below floor 81 were apparently altered in a similar manner, but he shows no curiosity about this.

            The emptiness of his case is revealed by his own words as he moves from doubt to opinion to suspicion to conjecture to claim to certainty, without any intervening evidence. Follow the progression :

            He first introduces the possibility of confusion over the initials “UPS” with a tentative :

            “Interestingly, in my opinion there is still an element of doubt, since this table, too, shows that the tenant was Fuji Bank: nothing to do with United Parcel Service.”

            He then concedes that NIST itself believed “United Parcel Service” were the occupants rather than an “Uninteruptable Power Supply” but he’s not so sure :

            “It may well be so, but my personal suspicion is that the acronym “UPS” was misinterpreted as referencing the international courier company but actually referred to one of Fuji’s IT resources.”

            He then states his only “evidence” that the power system actually existed :

            “Several sources confirm that data processing equipment related to the computer center was located on that floor: survivors have testified to this, and even pro-conspiracy sources (Christopher Bollyn) mention an unnamed “deep throat” who claims to have worked in this very facility.”

            A laptop is data processing equipment. We can presume that the Fuji Bank who by then apparently occupied the space did indeed process data, along with the occupants of every other floor. This is his only reference to a “computer centre” or “facility” so we have no way of knowing what he means, but we can be certain that if any of his “sources” had mentioned batteries, he would have told us. However he feels this “evidence” gives him enough grounds to claim :

            “So the 81st floor of the South Tower apparently had a large portion of its area occupied by the batteries of a UPS which belonged to Fuji Bank.”

            He then spends the bulk of the article conjecturing about the weight and current output such a power system might have if it really had been on floor 81, lavishly illustrated with photos of what the hypothetical system might have looked like. This has the effect of evaporating his last vestiges of doubt, enabling him to assert confidently :

            “A similar system was installed on the 81st floor of WTC2, exactly where the flow of molten material was observed.”

            And that’s his case. No evidence, just conjecture based on a very few cherry-picked “facts”. Exactly what you accuse ‘conspiracy theorists’ of doing. Do you stand by your claim that the “lead not steel” theory has been “convincing documented”?

          • Clark

            Node, it is you challenging the extensively evidenced and theoretically sound explanation of damage, fire, structural failure and progressive collapse with a highly unlikely and sparsely evidenced scenario of pre-rigged demolition. The burden of proof is upon you to demonstrate that the glowing flow was molten steel due to demolition devices that were somehow positioned rather accurately ahead of the impact, and then survived that impact and the intense fire. But I’m feeling generous, as usual, so…

            Firstly, there’s this, from the first article:

            “I don’t think the flow of material is molten steel for the simple reason that it occurred for several minutes from the same location, yet there were no signs of any melting of the supporting steel structure of the building face, which would have been in direct contact with this molten material.

            – It is quite obvious that the steel structure of the face would have been affected if the temperature of the molten flow had been close to the melting point of steel (approximately 1500 °C), but it would have had no trouble withstanding a molten light alloy at 600-650 °C, even if it had been heated to approximately 800 °C”

            Then there’s this excerpt from NCSTAR1-1H, referenced in the second article, as you’d know if you hadn’t gone off half-cocked:


            Note that Fuji Bank were variously recorded as tenants of floors 78, 80, 81 and 82 in 1989, 1990, 1997, 1999 and 2001. You need to show that Fuji Bank vacated a small section of this block of floors (thus introducing a possible security risk into the midst of their offices), which was then re-let to United Parcel Service, who for some reason had expensive structural reinforcement performed on the 81st floor, but then vacated it again, after which Fuji Bank re-occupied it.

            I suppose United Parcel Service must have been running a parcel depot up there; really cheap parking for their trucks in the sub-levels, and convenient access only 81 floors above… Not. So if they had the floor reinforced, more likely they were running a data centre up there, eh? In which case the Fuji Bank versus United Parcel Service debate makes no odds.

            So yes, I do stand by it.

          • Clark

            Incidentally, it was those two articles that initially prompted my suspicion that the Twin Towers had become overloaded, contributing to the rapidity of progressive collapse, and that this might be another thing that the official reports have tried to play down.

          • Node

            Node, it is you challenging the extensively evidenced and theoretically sound explanation of damage, fire, structural failure and progressive collapse with a highly unlikely and sparsely evidenced scenario of pre-rigged demolition. The burden of proof is upon you to demonstrate that the glowing flow was molten steel due to demolition devices that were somehow positioned rather accurately ahead of the impact, and then survived that impact and the intense fire.

            No. I never mentioned steel and my only challenge was to your statement that an independent observer had convincingly documented the theory that the molten metal was lead. In return you characterise me as a cartoon conspiracy theorist and demand I defend anything and everything anybody who fits your definition of conspiracy theorist has ever claimed.

            Carry on believing the above is “convincingly documented”. It explains a lot.

          • Clark

            OK, “an apparently* independent investigator has made a strong case that the flow couldn’t have been molten steel and that there was a battery room right above, so the flow was probably molten lead”.

            *(for pedants who haven’t the slightest similarity to “conspiracy theorists”)

            Look, I was only trying to head off the predictable Demolition Theorist diversions. There is no reasonable case that the top of the stump of building could arrest the fall of the top section, so the internal collapse cascade through the floor assemblies was inevitable.

            Meanwhile, I’ve still got John Goss telling me I don’t understand Newton’s third. Apparently, in a collision between identical objects, an equal and opposite reaction means that one object bursts into powder and stops dead in mid-air, while the other remains solid and gains no momentum. And yet you remain entirely silent about this.

          • Node

            I tried to debate with you about a specific issue. In return I get insults ….
            Well played to the gallery, Node.

            ….and sarcasm …..
            *(for pedants who haven’t the slightest similarity to “conspiracy theorists”)

            …. and irrelevancies …..
            There is no reasonable case that the top of the stump of building could arrest the fall of the top section ….

            …. and self-pity ….
            Meanwhile, I’ve still got John Goss telling me I don’t understand Newton’s third.

            …. and complaints that I’m not talking about what YOU want me to talk about.
            And yet you remain entirely silent about this

            And so, yet again, I end up discussing Clark rather than 911 issues. Just like every other person who comments on this thread ends up talking about Clark. Serious question : why do YOU think so many conversations end up talking about Clark?

          • Clark

            ” I end up discussing Clark rather than 911 issues”

            I’m not stopping you. In fact, I’ve been encouraging you; eg. what do you think the molten flow was?

            “why do YOU think so many conversations end up talking about Clark?”

            Because you conspiracy theorists have no answer to the on-topic points I make, and want to avoid answering the on-topic questions I ask, so they try to discredit me instead.

          • Node

            Because you conspiracy theorists have no answer to the on-topic points I make, and want to avoid answering the on-topic questions I ask, so they try to discredit me instead.

            How does that apply to the conversation we’ve just had? Why the insults and sarcasm? Why call me a conspiracy theorist? Do you think doing so is more likely to lead to a sensible on-topic discussion or an angry exchange of personal comments?

          • Clark

            Well, Node, you did ask.

            Do you think doing so is more likely to lead to a sensible on-topic discussion…?”

            That’s up to YOU, node. What do you think the molten stream was? Got any comments on the collapse sequence I outlined? Or Judy Wood’s physics in her BBE? They’re all on-topic; I’ll discuss them if you will.

          • Node

            That’s up to YOU, node

            No, it’s not. It’s up to YOU. Point to the last instance you can find on this thread where someone has disagreed with you and it hasn’t turned into an angry exchange.

          • Clark

            OK Node, if you say so it must be all my fault. It’s not like anyone ever calls me stupid, or says I’m a murderous agent or anything.

            Now. Any problems with my collapse scenario? And what’s the molten stuff?

          • Node

            You’ve avoided every question I’ve put to you about your behaviour in this particular discussion and on this thread in general. I don’t see any point in re-starting the discussion until we make some progress towards ensuring it doesn’t break down again for the same reasons – namely you becoming abusive.

            I would like you to address this question : Why did you call me a conspiracy theorist while at the same time claiming you were trying to encourage me to enter into a sensible discussion (00.09 am). I have previously challenged you on using that term to stifle debate, and you have several times acknowledged you are aware of my feelings about it. I cannot therefore accept that you used the term unthinkingly. The most plausible explanation is that you used it provocatively, you wanted to make me angry, you wanted to make me attack you because that would reinforce your persecution complex – “Look, everybody really HAS got it in for me!”. I believe it to be quite the opposite, everybody tries to cut you some slack because now and again we get a glimpse of a more likeable Clark, and want to see more of it.

            But you (probably semi-subconsciously) deflect friendly overtures. You are driven to see yourself as battling the world, all alone, everyone against you. And so you make it so. You are an expert at needling people, and you pick at their sensitive nerves until they react. I’m not claiming the rest of us are blameless, we are all have our weaknesses, and I’ve had a go at you often enough. But it’s not what I’m here for. Yes, I want a good argument, but not to cause hurt.

            So that’s where I’m at. I find I can’t discuss anything with you without it escalating into bitterness, and I’ve had enough of that. If you want to discuss 911 matters with me, give me some indication that you recognise the issues I’ve described, and that you’ll make some effort to improve matters. Otherwise, I’ll just avoid you.

          • Clark

            Node, there are these terms “conspiracy theory” and “conspiracy theorist”. I’ve stated my view repeatedly, which is that in addition to their obvious usage they’re used by organisations etc. that wish to discredit certain viewpoints, but that they also describe a recognisable mindset. What am I to do if some commenters seem to display aspects of this mindset? I’d rather you didn’t get angry, so how can I point out what seems to me to be a set of specific, recognisable biases in the way some commenters discuss matters? This bias matters to me because it obstructs discussion, but also because it leads to me being accused of ignorance, stupidity, and murderous complicity; I have feelings, too.

          • Clark

            Node, no, it will be YOUR choice if you avoid discussion. I offered to discuss the matter that YOU raised, even though it was personal and off-topic. Please take responsibility for your own decisions.

            Even now you could choose to discuss the molten stream, or my description of the collapses. But I cannot force you to do so; it is up to you.

          • Clark

            “Why did you call me a conspiracy theorist while at the same time claiming you were trying to encourage me to enter into a sensible discussion (00.09 am)”

            Because it seems to me that your avoidance of certain issues is consistent with the recognisable mindset commonly labelled as such.

            “I have previously challenged you on using that term to stifle debate, and you have several times acknowledged you are aware of my feelings about it.”

            Due to your feelings, I have requested suggestions for an alternative term. The only suggestion came from KoWN, but it could substitute for only the obvious usage, not the recognisable mindset.

            Do you want me to pretend that this mindset does not exist?

        • Nikko

          I engage with Clark through frustration because amongst the mass of bollocks that he writes, there is the odd gem. He is an excellent researcher.

          • Clark

            Nikko, thank you. I doubt I’m really that good. I just look for contrary evidence, which sometimes leads me to find contrary-contrary evidence. And I clear cookies and cache repeatedly, block Javascript routinely and change IP address at least once a day to avoid getting caught in a “filter bubble”, among other reasons.

            I suspect that a lot of people just keep following links from one Truther site to another. I’d get bored just reading rehashes of the same dozen of so “anomalies” over and over again.

  • Clark

    What does anyone here think about Zacarias Moussaoui? This article has a lot to say about internal Saudi power structure:

    Another name that might be interesting to look up is US lawyer Carla J. Martin. Her early work was for the US Federal Aviation Administration, acting as FAA counsel in the Lockerbie bombing case. She transferred to the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) in 2002, which became part of the Department of Homeland Security in 2003. During Zacarias Moussaoui’s trial, she contacted and allegedly wrongly coached seven witnesses. She was also involved in the trial of “Shoe Bomber” Richard Reid. Her speciality seems to be application of certain laws to prevent disclosure of “sensitive” information.

  • Paul Barbara

    ‘Selling Out the Investigation’: by Bill Manning

    ‘….For more than three months, structural steel from the World Trade Center has been and continues to be cut up and sold for scrap. Crucial evidence that could answer many questions about high-rise building design practices and performance under fire conditions is on the slow boat to China, perhaps never to be seen again in America until you buy your next car.

    Such destruction of evidence shows the astounding ignorance of government officials to the value of a thorough, scientific investigation of the largest fire-induced collapse in world history. I have combed through our national standard for fire investigation, NFPA 921, but nowhere in it does one find an exemption allowing the destruction of evidence for buildings over 10 stories tall.

    Hoping beyond hope, I have called experts to ask if the towers were the only high-rise buildings in America of lightweight, center-core construction. No such luck. I made other calls asking if these were the only buildings in America with light-density, sprayed-on fireproofing. Again, no luck-they were two of thousands that fit the description.

    Comprehensive disaster investigations mean increased safety. They mean positive change. NASA knows it. The NTSB knows it. Does FEMA know it?…..’

    Well, Clark, so much for your continually cracking on about the ‘shit construction’ of the WTC!!

    It is a pity the whole article isn’t available, without a subscription.

    Another thing I learnt: there were dumptrucks lined up on the evening of 9/11, ready to cart away the ‘debris’ (‘evidence’).

    ‘Dump Trucks Ready on 9/11/01 to Cart off Evidence’:

    Real fast workers (unless they were expecting it to happen!). They weren’t quite so quick with Katrina, now, were they?

    Bit like the ‘Security Services’ going to pick up any CCTV from around the Pentagon within minutes, or the plain-clothes ‘people’ collecting bits of debris from the lawn of the Pentagon – once again, disturbing a crime scene.
    Wouldn’t want any evidence that the government were lying, now, would they?

    • Clark

      I said ages ago that something the NIST report was disguising was the vulnerability of buildings of such construction, because widespread awareness could start a panic that could collapse the economic system.

      – DEPUTY CHIEF VINCENT DUNN RET. […] ask yourself why did these structures collapse so fast and so completely. The answer can be found by examining high-rise construction in New York City over the past 50 years In terms of structural system the twin towers departed completely from other high-rise buildings.
      – […]
      – The most noticeable change in the modern high-rise construction is a trend to using more steel and shaping lightweight steel into tubes, curves, and angles to increase its load bearing capability. The WTC has tubular steel bearing walls, fluted corrugated steel flooring and bent bar steel truss floor supports. To a modern high rise building designer steel framing is economical and concrete is a costly material . . . Architects, designers, and builders all know if you remove concrete from a structure you have a building that weights less. So if you create a lighter building you can use columns, girders and beams of smaller dimensions, or better yet you can use the same size steel framing and build a taller structure . . .

      – If you reduce the structure’s mass you can build cheaper and builder higher. Unfortunately unprotected steel warps, melts, sags and collapses when heated to normal fire temperatures about 1100 to 1200 degrees F. The fire service believes there is a direct relation of fire resistance to mass of structure. The more mass the more fire resistance. The best fire resistive building in America is a concrete structure. The structures that limit and confine fires best, and suffer fewer collapses are reinforced concrete pre WWII buildings such as housing projects and older high rise buildings like the empire state building, The more concrete, the more fire resistance; and the more concrete the less probability of total collapse. The evolution of high-rise construction can be seen, by comparing the Empire State Building to the WTC. My estimate is the ratio of concrete to steel in the Empire State Building is 60/40. The ratio of concrete to steel in the WTC is 40/60. The tallest building in the world, the Petronas Towers, in Kula Lumpur, Malaysia, is more like the concrete to steel ratio of the Empire State Building than concrete to steel ratio of the WTC . . .

      – A plane that only weighted 10 tons struck the Empire State Building and the high-octane gasoline fire quickly flamed out after 35 minutes. When the firefighters walked up to the 79 floor most of the fire had dissipated. The Empire State Building in my opinion, and most fire chiefs in New York City, is the most fire safe building in America. I believe it would have not collapsed like the WTC towers. I believe the Empire State Building, and for that matter any other skeleton steel building in New York City, would have withstood the impact and fire of the terrorist’s jet plane better than the WTC towers.

      – The WTC started construction in the 1970s. And the WTC towers built by the Port Authority of New York did not have to comply with the minimum requirements of the new 1968 performance building code.

      Loads more on that page…

      Our teachings on high-rise structures go like this:
      o They are broken down into three major construction groups; lightweight, medium weight and heavyweight and these designations coincide almost directly with groups according to years.
      o Almost all the heavyweights were built before 1945, the medium weights from ’45 to ’68 and the lightweights from ’68 to present.
      o It’s not too far a leap from this to deduce that your heavyweights are your Empire State, your Woolworth Building, your Equitable Insurance Building. 20 to 25 pounds per cubic foot. Limestone faced, heavy steel skeleton encased in concrete or block and tile.
      o Your lightweights are 8 to 10 lbs per cubic foot, and include of course the Trade Center, the World Financial Center, the JP Morgan building. The newest high-rises in town, basically.
      o The middleweights are a bit more elusive, maybe because this group to me are the least aesthetically pleasing. They are 10 to 20 pounds per cubic foot. The Pan Am Building (or Met Life as it is now), One Bankers Trust Plaza, The UN Building.

      – So guess which one the firefighters like to fight the fires in the most. Well, you guessed it, the heavyweights. Not because we’re hopeless romantics in love with the architecture of the early 20th Century. Why then? Because they perform under stress. You see, we are interested in results. It’s all fine and well that a particular partition is supposed last against a fire X amount of hours in a controlled laboratory test, or that a curtain wall is not supposed to allow fire to pass from one floor of a high-rise to the next. But in the organized chaos of firefighting, the knuckle dragging grunt work, the 100 or more variables thrown into the mix, the controlled yelling to orchestrate men into action against the Red Devil, the race against time, the sheer physical logistics, they don’t usually do what they were designed to do
      . . .
      – Stairwells protected by concrete and steel instead of sheetrock would have resulted in lower casualities at the WTC. Walls were obliterated and doorjambs jammed as the building settled into its death throes, barring escape for many. What if power remained on and the elevators stayed operational? High-rise buildings in New York built between 1945 and 1968 were required to have a “fire tower,” a stair in a shaft open at top and separated from the floor space by a vestibule with two doors at each end. This is a tremendous advantage to fleeing occupants psychologically as well as physically . . .

      Of course, John Goss will tell you that these fire-fighting officers aren’t concerned about safety of the public and the men under their command; they’re just covering up controlled demolition for the government. Fucking filthy accomplices to murder, eh John? As an engineer, you KNOW the Twin Towers were the BEST.

      Fucking Truthers make me sick sometimes.

      • Clark

        Pages back I said that the Empire State was a tougher building than the Twin Towers, but as an engineer John Goss told me I was talking bollox. I asked him to do some research and compare average density. Oh no, he’d rather tell me over and over that I don’t understand Newton. He owes me an apology or six.

        – Empire State, your Woolworth Building, your Equitable Insurance Building. 20 to 25 pounds per cubic foot. Limestone faced, heavy steel skeleton encased in concrete or block and tile.

        – Your lightweights are 8 to 10 lbs per cubic foot, and include of course the Trade Center, the World Financial Center, the JP Morgan building. The newest high-rises in town, basically.

        Anyone like me who fixes things knows that the quality of nearly everything has been steadily falling over the course of decades. That’s why I have a thirty year old washing machine – it doesn’t go wrong much, and when it does it’s possible to fix it.

  • Paul Barbara

    ‘What Chemtrails Really Are’:

    ‘We are dealing with Star Wars. It involves the combination of chemtrails for creating an atmosphere that will support electromagnetic waves, ground-based, electromagnetic field oscillators called gyrotrons, and ionospheric heaters. Particulates make directed energy weapons work better. It has to do with “steady state” and particle density for plasma beam propagation.

    They spray barium powders and let it photo-ionize from the ultraviolet light of the sun. Then, they make an aluminum-plasma generated by “zapping” the metal cations that are in the spray with either electromagnetics from HAARP, the gyrotron system on the ground [Ground Wave Emergency Network], or space-based lasers. The barium makes the aluminum-plasma more particulate dense. This means they can make a denser plasma than they normally could from just ionizing the atmosphere or the air.

    More density [more particles] means that these particles which are colliding into each other will become more charged because there are more of them present to collide. What are they ultimately trying to do up there — is create charged-particle, plasma beam weapons.
    Chemtrails are the medium – GWEN pulse radars, the various HAARPs, and space-based lasers are the method, or more simply:

    Chemtrails are the medium — directed energy is the method.

    Spray and Zap.

    This system appears to be in Russia, Canada, the United States, and all of Europe. Exotic weapons can be mobile, stationary, land-based, aerial, or satellite.

    It is an offensive and defensive system against EM attacks and missiles. It uses ionospheric particle shells as defense mechanisms [like a bug-zapper shell]* against missiles and EM attacks. That means they spray and then pump up the spray with electromagnetics. When these shells are created using the oscillating, electromagnetic, gyrotron stations, it “excludes” and displaces the background magnetic field. These shells can be layered one above another in a canopy fashion for extra protection from missiles. The chemtrail sprays have various elements in them like carbon which can used to absorb microwaves. Some of these sprays have metal flakes in them that make aerial craft invisible to radar. Spoofer sprays. Sprays like these can be used to create colorful, magnetized plasmas to cloak fighter jets.

    There are satellite weapons involved. Activists are using meters and are getting readings of microwaves, x-rays, and some other kind of emission that they are not sure of, maybe a low-intensity laser……’

    • glenn_uk

      The only problem with all this is that it’s totally unfounded, evidence-free, idle speculation of the most improbable nature.

      • Clark

        Yeah, but it sounds very sciencey with lots of technical terms, so it must be true… Like Progenium XY Complex, clinically proven to reduce wrinkles.

    • Clark

      I have two ways you could check “chemtrails” for yourself. One requires binoculars, notebook and pencil, investment of time and patience. Its results would be highly indicative but not conclusive. The other would need about £3000, would be conclusive, but I’m not entirely sure its feasible – it probably is.

      I have looked for evidence of “chemtrails” on-line and can’t find any that passes the critical thinking test. Frankly, I don’t believe in them. I might get around to doing a bit of method 1 above over the next few months, but I’m not buying the equipment for method 2.

      A collaborative project could easily do method 2, but what I’ve discovered about “conspiracy theorists” through my participation on this thread is that such a group would fudge their results and get a false positive. They wouldn’t even mean to; it’s just the mindset and the group dynamic.

    • Clark

      Critical thinking – so all countries cooperate in spraying this stuff over their own territory so that they all become equally vulnerable to other countries’ beam weapons, do they? I’d have thought that any given country would do better and save money by keeping their own territory clear of the beam-weapon enabling aerosols, and sticking to conventional defences against missiles.

      I have a guess that the Ground Wave Emergency Network is a real system for communicating with nuclear submarines using Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) radio waves. This was also one of the original objectives of HAARP; I can explain the physics if you wish.

  • Paul Barbara

    ‘Boston Marathon Bomber Tsarnaev Severely Injured In Prison, May Never Walk Or Talk Again’:

    Such is ‘Justice’ in America.
    The Warden and guards will probably get a medal and a rise, and the ‘Aryan Brotherhood’ (or whoever really caused the horrific injuries to Dzhokhar Tsarnaev) may get ‘extra time’, for it to be later quietly annulled and for them to get out early.
    And the whole ‘Boston Marathon’ exercise was a charade.

    Perhaps it will alert Chechens who work or side with the US just what kind of filthy slimeballs they are allied with.

    • KingofWelshNoir

      This story is a spoof. The Empire News site is satirical and includes such stories as ‘Morgue Employee Cremated By Mistake While Taking a Nap During His Break’.

      • glenn_uk

        Shh! Don’t tell him that – it’ll spoil his fun!

        Paul – did you know The Onion is a fantastic site where you can get breaking news which you certainly won’t find anywhere else?

        • Paul Barbara

          @ glenn_uk April 18, 2017 at 12:12
          Well, well, well! Howdy, stranger! Don’t often see you round these parts.
          Did some one tip you off that I’d slipped up, or where you ‘just passing by’?
          Enjoy the spectacle – not often does it occur, and hopefully increasingly less frequent.

          • Clark

            “Did some one tip you off that I’d slipped up…”

            Translated from conspiracy-theorists’ idiom; “Glenn’s an agent! Glenn’s an agent! The Team informed him! They’re watching ME, because I’m so influential!”

          • Paul Barbara

            @ Clark April 19, 2017 at 13:54
            I should stick wirh your day job; I doubt if you’d get any jobs as a translator (except for the ‘White Helmets’ or the head choppers they PR for.
            The point is, glenn_uk didn’t answer the simple question – it was not rhetorical, just something I suspect.

          • Clark

            “…except for the ‘White Helmets’ or the head choppers they PR for”

            Oh so now I’m murderous. Did you bother urging your MP to ensure the war criminals get prosecuted?

            I thought it was the head-chopping Saudi’s you were trying to absolve of 9/11? Or do you just contradict anything in the mainstream on principle? You’re not making any sense.

        • John Goss

          One of your faults is sniping at people to score points. You would not like it if somebody did it to you and you create plenty of opportunity. 🙂 Only honest people fall for spoofs because they are too trusting. Though I think Paul might have been having a bit of fun with you. People who fall for tricks, like pensioners who lose all their savings because they trust the untrustworthy, are among the most vulnerable in society. So would it be fair play to taunt someone who had been gulled by crooks? Think about what you write please!

          • Resident Dissident

            So what was your thinking behind your spoof of ballot stuffing at Democratic primaries using examples taken from the Russian Parliamentary elections – and attempt to deceive honest people? As I have said before you have no shame.

          • Clark

            Resident Dissident, one for you:


            Last week, the American government released the confessions of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the senior al-Qaida terrorist who appears to have directed the attack on the Twin Towers.

            – He has now added to this a list of 30 other crimes and atrocities that he planned or put into action. It was published by the American government last week. There is nothing quite like this list outside the Moscow show trials that Stalin mounted; and if we accept Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s confession, we owe Stalin’s ghost a handsome apology.

            – The evidence that he did in fact plot to assassinate Pope John Paul II, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, and President Musharraf has exactly the same value as the confessions of Yagoda, Yezhov and Beria, successive heads of the NKVD and KGB, that they had plotted to assassinate Comrade Stalin on the orders of British intelligence.

            – The evidence that Mohammed tried to blow up the Empire State Building, Heathrow Airport, Canary Wharf, Big Ben and the Panama Canal, is exactly as good as the evidence that Trotskyist saboteurs and wreckers were responsible for the failings of the Soviet economy in the 1930s. In all these cases, we have the confessions of the men responsible. We have no other evidence.

          • Clark

            John Goss, 22:19 – “One of your faults is sniping at people to score points. You would not like it if somebody did it to you and you create plenty of opportunity”

            But as an engineer you’re forever “sniping at me to score points”. On and on that I can’t do science and don’t understand Newton, when it’s clearly YOU that doesn’t.

          • Clark

            John Goss, you think I’m sniping, but I pointed out to Paul that’s a satirical piece when he linked to it, but he insisted upon his belief that it’s a leaked document.


            I have no reason not to believe the documents I linked to are anything other than genuine, and the mere fact you don’t seem to agree means didlly squat to me, without some evidence or good reason””

            I’m trying to do him a favour, like I’ve been trying to show you that Judy Wood’s BBE “physics” is a load of bunk. “Truth, Justice, Peace” isn’t much help if people can’t tell truth from satire or nonsense.

          • John Goss

            “So what was your thinking behind your spoof of ballot stuffing at Democratic primaries using examples taken from the Russian Parliamentary elections – and attempt to deceive honest people?”

            Anything I’ve ever posted has been posted in good faith. Now a question for you. Your absence on this 9/11 thread has been noticeable but suddenly you have recently appeared here, with nothing concrete to say about the 9/11 thread, just argumenta ad hominem, as per usual. As I rarely comment on the general thread these days, and I always seem to be the target of your anti-Russian angst, it is a legitimate question to ask: Are you hounding me? What brought you to this thread? Do you have something to say about 9/11?

  • John Goss

    Clark: “I’ve been trying to show you that Judy Wood’s BBE “physics” is a load of bunk.”

    Her formulaic physics is good. You said so yourself even though you did not understand what she was saying. I will try again.

    She observed from the almost freefall demolition of the twin towers that there were clouds of dust and she claims the dust may have been the result of some directed energy weapon. Her billiard ball theory suggests that because of conservation of momentum energy that could not happen. This is true whether or not you support her belief in a direct enery weapon (which seems unlikely to me) or not.

    She did not put it like this but if a car runs into a brick wall the car would likely be damaged and the wall would likely be damaged but the car would stop. The momentum of the car would be brought to a halt. You cannot use that momentum again for, say, another wall beyond the first wall. Think bigger. A tanker goes into a car-dealership and destroys a number of cars pushing one into the dealership offices.

    Another report said that the driver had made no attempt at braking. Nevertheless the tanker stopped. This is what you cannot get your head around with your kind of physics. For you the tanker would have continued forever until everything was destroyed. Nothing would stop it. The tanker is much bigger than the cars but the cars have nevertheless slowed it down, in other words, there has been an opposite reaction. Yes the lorry was not falling under gravity though I think it went down an embankment.

    Every floor in the twin towers would have caused an opposite reaction had the demolition followed the laws of physics without any weakening of its structure. This you cannot understand. For you there is no resistance (or very very little). Your nonsense about scale does not enter into it. Scaling something down, or up, makes little difference. Newtonian physics applies to everything. Again I post Jonathan H Cole’s experiment video which explains this to any thinking person. It just is a law which you must first understand, then accept.

    He shows you, starting at 7:26, even when lower stories are removed there is no inevitability that the rest of the building will collapse, with proportionally much more of the building above the fracture point than in either of the twin towers. Now only someone who is being deliberately cantankerous despite contrary evidence would challenge this, or only someone who is so entrenched in an opinion formed years ago to accept that he or she is wrong. Many people have tried to help you with this.

    Although I am addressing Clark I would be interested to know if others agree with Jonathan H. Cole’s experiments and analysis, if anyone is still following the thread.

  • Paul Barbara

    There seem to be a spate of hoax stories being spread around at the moment. Two I didn’t fall for was a certain Middle East country threatening to blow up the continent (I’m not sure which one), and Russia and China each sending an aircraft carrier to the Gulf of Mexico – hardly credible as they only have one each (that was from a site called ‘’).
    I admit I must exercise more caution, and will do so.

    • Clark

      Not strange. I haven’t bothered following the link. You believe all sorts of rubbish so it’s probably bunk, and life is too short. You should respect those who read your comments by learning to think critically so you don’t waste so much of their time.

      • John Goss

        You should have read Paul’s link to the innocence of Tsarnaev and the efforts of his paternal aunt fighting to clear his and the family name, together with the legal opinion of John Remington Graham in Tsarnaev’s favour. It is a very good case presentation which shows that Tsarnaev cannot have carried the bomb for two reasons. One, his backback recorded in photographic evidence is white and was not bulky enough to have contained the pressure-cooker bomb. The bag that exploded is black.

        But there is a lot more to the Boston bombing that makes no sense, in particular the pillar-box red paint on the floor purporting to be blood. Blood is very dark, almost black when there is a lot of it. Of course I would not espect a critical thinker to read any of it, not even when Craig has questioned the whole Tsarnaev affair on the grounds that the FBI found nothing against Tsarnaev. The lawyer he got for himself was a disgrace to the profession. She instructed him to plead guilty and made no defence plea on his behalf.

        • Clark

          John Goss, it might be true, but you missed my point. I didn’t follow Paul’s link because the majority of his links that I have followed turned out to be invented nonsense. If it affects me that way, it will affect others, too, so if he wants to get a message across he needs to be more selective. You’re not going to tell him because you’re a conspiracy theorist, and conspiracy theorists never tell each other when there’s shit on their shoes; consequently, their house reeks of shit.

          • Paul Barbara

            @ Clark April 19, 2017 at 23:28
            Reply to the point. FBI evidence shows Tsarnaev’s WERE NOT GUILTY.

            But, of course, responding to undeniable evidence is not permitted, under your criteria, if it contradicts the positions you have seemingly ‘taken’.

            Bit like the ‘USS Liberty’, which you also seem very reluctant to comment on, for obvious reasons.

          • Clark

            There you go, making out I’m a bad guy again, probably because I don’t accept “chemtrails”, seeing as Glenn got it in the neck, too. Have you written to your MP yet?

            Start thinking critically and I’ll start following your links again. The attack on the Liberty was false-flag. What’s this reason that’s meant to be so obvious? Anyone?

    • Clark

      And it’s not a matter of “gloating”; I’d much rather you didn’t keep repeating wrong stuff. I’m trying to encourage a chaff-reduction programme. There’s no point publicising true things if you bury them amid a much greater quantity of nonsense. The Boy Who Cried Wolf; people learn to ignore your warnings.

    • Clark

      See, it’s not meant to be us versus each other – that would mean we’d succumbed to divide and conquer. It’s meant to be all of us versus untruth. But you can’t just assume that everything in the mainstream is wrong. Most of it is right; it’s just put together in a misleading manner – mostly a matter of how it’s presented – with the odd lie thrown in. So our only hope is to sort the wheat from the chaff, and since no source incorruptible, is the only reliable tool is critical thinking.

      Critical thinking is part of our nature; “God given” if you like. But like all our abilities, it needs to be developed with practice and exercise.

      • Paul Barbara

        @ Clark April 19, 2017 at 16:39
        ‘On the other hand…’, as Chaim Barmant used to say – some folks on this thread are fed up with BS ‘Establishment supporters’, be they outright or ‘Limited Hangout’.
        IF you really believed we (Truthers) were just pushing out a load of BS (like you do), would you (and your ilk) really spend so much time and energy opposing us?
        Surely, our crap would sink us without your generous assistance?

        • glenn_uk

          PB: “ Surely, our crap would sink us without your generous assistance?

          You mean like all the religious crap, which well over half the world fully believes in, despite _all_ of it being risible nonsense? You mean like the racist lies that are peddled about Muslims, Jews, people of colour, people of non-straight sexual orientations etc. etc. – that sort of crap?

          No, Paul, it doesn’t. Lies stay out there, they fester and grow and become more poisonous.

        • Clark

          “Limited hangout” YES!!! I was waiting for that moronic term to surface.

          So if anyone suggests ANYTHING, we all have to accept it like sheep, or we’re TRAITORS TO THE CAUSE.

          Baked beans have MKULTRA LSD in them. C’mon, start parroting, or you’re BAD!

1 107 108 109 110 111 134

Comments are closed.