The 9/11 Post 6923

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

6,923 thoughts on “The 9/11 Post

1 108 109 110
    • John Goss

      Even if I wanted to comment in answer to your comment the .jpg link is untrustworthy according to Firefox. So I have no idea exactly what you are talking about except that it relates to Judy Wood. In general though you have not managed as far as I can see to understand that the theoritical scenarios in her Billiard Ball Theory are theoretical. They are based in Newtonian science.

      Your comment is actually a diversion from the real-life actual honest-to-goodness experiments of Jonathan Cole and the video he has produced. So instead of trying to divert the thread would you please address Cole’s short video. I posted it because you refused to do a simple experiment with tiles. But Jonathan has done an even better experiments. So to quote myself:

      “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 (storeys) 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.”

      You see Clark, you cannot just ignore things that do not suit you. As Cole says himself either something is right or wrong. Is the video right? If not why not?

      • Clark

        It’s the case 3 graph on Wood’s BBE page:

        Either add a temporary security exception in Firefox (you’re not going to be entering any personal data so there’s no risk), or use the link above.

        In reply to Cole’s experiment; you can drop all sorts of things onto other things. Maybe the falling one will break, or the stationary one will, or maybe both or neither. How shall we decide which are relevant to the Twin Towers?

        • John Goss

          “As Cole says himself either something is right or wrong. Is the video right? If not why not?”

          What kind of an answer is:

          “In reply to Cole’s experiment; you can drop all sorts of things onto other things. Maybe the falling one will break, or the stationary one will, or maybe both or neither. How shall we decide which are relevant to the Twin Towers?”

          It’s not about which of like objects will break. It is about Newton’s 3rd law of motion. You keep going on about knowing this but cannot model a scenario where the floors of the twin towers (OR ANY OTHER BUILDING) will collapse in almost freefall without resistance. You say you are a practical man.Thatbeing so you will know whether what Jonathan Cole says and demonstrates is right or wrong.

          Are his experiments and science right or wrong? It’s not difficult.

          • Clark

            His experiments show how certain bricks and certain pieces of wood behave under certain conditions. It does not show how the Twin Towers would behave under the conditions on 9/11.

  • glenn_uk

    PB: ” 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’? ”

    Did someone “tip me off” ?!?!

    “Tip me off” to what, that someone was making a fool of themselves on this oversized thread? Ha ha! Sound the Klaxon! Call the flying squad!

    You’re a hoot, Paul. Got to give you credit for that. As a matter of fact, the latest posts are all mentioned on the “Recent Comments” side-bar, I noticed KoWN had written a post here, and I considered him interesting enough to come along and see what he said.

    What it says about you, though, is rather more significant. Not only are you incredibly gullible, and ready to believe the silliest nonsense to the point that you cannot distinguish between satire and brave truth-telling. Not only do you fail to check any source, even spending a moment to see what that publication you’re quoting is about (and even if it’s on the up-and-up). Not only do you fail to get a second source (never mind a third and a fourth independent record of your claim). Not only that you’re so paranoid, you think I – personally – am some government agent. But you actually think that -you- are so important, and your posts are so terribly threatening to the state, that a bunch of spooks get in a lather every time you decide to treat us to your latest round of nonsense.

    Now that is quite something.

      • glenn_uk

        You wrote this:

        The point is, glenn_uk didn’t answer the simple question – it was not rhetorical, just something I suspect.

        I addressed it, just above. You won’t find a single point there that you can actually refute, I’m afraid, so you’re probably best off ignoring it if you’re happier where you are – in a state of permanent suspicion and ignorance.

  • Paul Barbara

    @ glenn_uk April 20, 2017 at 00:21
    Here’s a good resource about the USS Liberty:

    Oddly enough, I am familiar with the link; I sport it on my ‘Remember the Liberty’ T/shirt I had printed.
    Anyone like to buy one? I wear it with Truth and Justice in mind.
    I am 74; ‘knocking on heaven’s door’ (though I know you disdain such ‘nonsense’), but I have been involved in Human Rights campaigns since the 1970’s. Pre that, from a pretty early age I was a ‘lost soul’.
    I have survived 10 months on the 1967 Hippy Trail to India, as well as much, much more.
    I am on a mission.

    • Paul Barbara

      @ glenn_uk April 20, 2017 at 03:40
      Oddly enough, there are far bigger crazies on this thread than me – lkie those who believe a guy on dialysis in a cave in Afghanistan organised 9/11 attacks; that 4 ‘pilots’, the best of the being unable to safely fly a Cessna some months before, pulled off a descent and direct hit on the Pentagon, something virtually impossible for even a fully trained pilot with thousands of hours flying time; that aluminium planes slice through steel columns like a knife through butter; that ‘planes and fires’ caused the WTC Towers to collapse at not much more than free-fall speed;; that the USAF was unable to prevent the attacks while the ‘planes’ were careening across the skies of America, reportedly ‘hijacked’; and so on and so forth.
      And you and the other ‘normal suspects’ have the audacity to pull me up on accidentally (admittedly without due caution) posting a spoof link? At least I admitted my mistake when it was pointed out. You and others continue to believe the ‘Government Conspiracy Theory’ as though it was gospel. But then, of course, we all know that politicians and the MSM never lie, don’t we?

      • Clark

        Binary blinkers, Paul – Take Them Off!!! I considered the physics and did a little maths, and it really does seem that buildings like the Twin Towers can fall very quickly. That doesn’t mean I believe that Osama bin Laden organised the 9/11 attacks – but even the “official story” is that they were organised in Hamburg, and I know full well that Osama was never charged with any aspect of 9/11 – that’s official, too.

        There aren’t just two possibilities. You aren’t noticing that the official account and the media propaganda are different from each other. That makes three things straight away – official, media, and whatever actually happened. The more you look the more versions you find; different media present different views. Some of the FBI officers’ accounts ARE in the papers but NOT in the official conclusions. And so on, to infinite complexity that can never be fully unravelled.

        (Scare quotes that follow are for Glenn)

        I’m sorry it’s complicated, but “God” made the world, not me. If “He’d” made it just for you, maybe “He’d” have populated it only with easily recognisable good people and bad people, each of their actions either completely virtuous or utterly sinful, but in “His” wisdom “He” made it far more complicated than that. It is up to you to recognise the wisdom of “His” ways, not for all humanity to conform to your prejudices.

        • John Goss

          “Binary blinkers, Paul – Take Them Off!!! I considered the physics and did a little maths, and it really does seem that buildings like the Twin Towers can fall very quickly.”

          No it does not – not without their substructure being weakened. You have been shown a video which models why it cannot happen but refuse to address it, refuse to create an alternative model, and you have no proof whatsover that the twin towers could have fallen “very quickly” without the aid of explosives, other than your bigotry in favour of official versions. What is wrong with Jonathan Cole’s physics other than it does not fit what you want to believe?

        • Nikko

          Clark says: “I considered the physics and did a little maths, and it really does seem that buildings like the Twin Towers can fall very quickly.”

          Your “physics” is an absolute joke: falling rubble creating lateral forces, outer perimeter peeling like a banana, the foundation of the towers slipping like on ice, objects hurled horizontally due to toppling like a felled tree. As for the maths, it was so little and so basic that it was meaningless.

          Did not glenn-uk explain yesterday that science needs proof?

          • Clark

            Please tell me why you think a floor assembly that could support a maximum of eleven times its own weight would arrest the descent of the top block of the building which exceeded that weight.

          • Clark

            Nikko, this is bizarre; have you forgotten thermodynamics? Disorder will always increase if it can. Engineers and designers have to PROVE that a proposed building will stay up, not that it can collapse! Why not build them a mile tall? Why not build aircraft out of gaffer tape and old lolly sticks?

            Is that how you approach everything in life? Drive at 120mph unless someone can PROVE you might crash?

          • glenn_uk

            Would it exceed it, though? It looked to me as if a substantial portion had turned into dust, before whatever remained settled on the increasingly strong sections below. As it was, it looked to me as if it didn’t impede it much at each stage.

          • Clark

            Glenn: and it was only the vertical frame that was increasingly strong lower down; the floor assemblies were the same throughout. The proportion of horizontal cross-sectional area occupied by vertical frame was tiny, especially if we don’t include the core, which was seen to survive longest. So the floor assemblies will have encountered the vast majority of the falling material.

          • Clark

            Glenn, you’re right; the structure below didn’t impede the falling section much at any stage. Chandler measured the descent for the first three seconds; it averaged at 0.64 of g. So the upward resistance was about a third of the weight. How much might we expect? Ignore the vertical frame because after the initial buckling it wasn’t being destroyed at the time (no matter what Bazant said); it was being bypassed. Let’s assume the resistance to descent was coming from the floor assemblies, and a floor assembly could take between six to eleven times its own weight. Let’s guess that the falling section weighed about as much as twenty floor assemblies.

            20 / 6 = ~3.3
            20 / 11 = ~ 1.8

            The resistance is just above the top of that range. Remember we’ve only reckoned static loads ie. the minimum.

          • Nikko

            “Please tell me why you think a floor assembly that could support a maximum of eleven times its own weight would arrest the descent of the top block of the building which exceeded that weight.”

            Every floor has its limits, of course, but first things first. You need to prove that your assumption that floors collapsed is correct. What happened inside the building was unseen so so far it is a speculation on your part.

            More importantly, even if you are right and the floors did collapse, then you need to explain how that led to the lateral forces that destroyed the vertical structures of the towers in neat sections. What you have told us so far is pure, unsupported bollocks.

          • John Goss

            “Please tell me why you think a floor assembly that could support a maximum of eleven times its own weight would arrest the descent of the top block of the building which exceeded that weight.”

            As you asked me too I will answer. When I first mentioned eleven times its own weight (and then it might start to weaken) I was being facetious. The question, as so many of your questions was ridiculous. The answer is, who knows? Do you? I noticed during construction that the prefabricated floor sections (before concrete was poured onto them) were stacked on top of one another. Then they were raised by cranes that were standing on the floors.

            Each of the towers had supported the weight of these upper floors for 28 years without any problem. The undamaged structure below was just as rigid as it ever had been. The arrest was inevitable. When it arrests is the only issue about which there can be conjecture.

            glenn_uk explains it here. At which point I’m sure you must have said to yourself: “Bloody Hell! It’s just like Judy Wood’s model. I can’t get my head round this. I’m off to bed.”


            The reason I make facetious comments to ridiculous questions, if I take you up on them, is because they are ridiculous. But for the last time, hopefully, each floor assembly would have put up resistance to a falling section above it, (equal and opposite action and reaction) however many floors that section contained. This is why Judy Wood modeled more than one scenario, a ten floor model and a one floor model. What she is saying in essence is that the twin towers could not have happened in almost freefall however modeled. Her models are in your favour of your notion that total top-down collapse could happen because they assume that each of the floors below will give, which with steel-framed buildings is highly unlikely, and has never happened, unless you believe the 9/11 lie.

            As to why with verinage demolitions I brought steel-framed buildings into the scenario it is because steel is structurally stronger than wood or reinforced concrete (properties of materials). Welded and bolted together steel-framed buildings are very strong. You can of course bring down a steel-framed building with explosives. The easiest way is to topple it because it would be extremely unlikely to fall directly down due to its rigidity.


            Notice how the weaker materials have been removed at the base so they do not impede the demolition and it falls in the direction the demolition experts hope.

            Now look Clark, I, and others, have tried endlessly to help you with this concept. It is time-consuming, and then when you come out with the same unscientific nonsense in support of official viewpoints, it is frustrating. Hope this helps.

          • John Goss

            If you stop the Pet Polymer building demolition at 1:20 just before the video ends it shows the aftermath of the demolition and may give you a clue as to why experts expected to see more steel debris in the 9/11 aftermath. The bridge disaster at Tacoma Narrows is another example of the properties of structural steel. It does not give way easily.

          • Clark

            Nikko 07:58: I do not assume that floors collapsed. Please try to avoid putting words into my mouth.

            Observably, after perimeter buckling the top section began to descend. The descent of the top section inevitably would have substantially destroyed or decoupled floors at the interface of the two sections.

            Observably, the breaking of the lower perimeter into sections occurred later, so its energy requirement need not be considered at this stage.

          • Clark

            John, please try to keep to the subject, which is the Twin Towers and engineering. Please try to answer plainly rather than facetiously, and please stop metaphorically wagging your finger at me.

            Eleven times its own weight is the highest figure I’ve seen for the limit of a floor assembly. Of course, as an engineer you understand that if a component at its limit begins to weaken, its limit decreases (that’s the meaning of “weaken”), so the existing overload becomes proportionally greater than the now reduced limit. Consequently, the component weakens even faster, reducing the limit even faster, in a classic positive feedback loop. This is why things tend to break very suddenly, though the overload may only be increasing steadily.

            Please try to answer the questions. Does Judy Wood’ limit the applicability of her BBE to any specific materials? Can momentum just disappear?

          • Clark

            John Goss, 09:02: – “I noticed during construction that the prefabricated floor sections (before concrete was poured onto them) were stacked on top of one another. Then they were raised by cranes that were standing on the floors

            Factually wrong. During construction, each of the Twin Towers had four cranes. These cranes were mounted at each corner of the cores. Each of these corners consisted of four of the strongest box-columns in the entire structure, arranged as the corners of a rectangle.

            John, how did you get this wrong? By misrepresenting the cranes as mounted on the floor truss assemblies, you have given the false impression that the floor truss assemblies were very strong, even before concrete was poured onto them. Were you seeing what you wanted to see?

          • Nikko

            John G at 09.02 is spot on.

            Verinage demolitions work only on concrete buildings because concrete, unlike steel, is brittle. Besides, the number of floors can’t be more than 8 or 10, because the collapse just runs out of energy

          • Nikko

            “Nikko 07:58: I do not assume that floors collapsed. Please try to avoid putting words into my mouth.”

            In that case I have not got an effing clue what you are on about and neither have you.

          • Nikko

            “Engineers and designers have to PROVE that a proposed building will stay up, not that it can collapse!

            It all depends on the aspect which you are interested in. In this case the building did collapse and it is up to you to you to prove your theory.

          • Clark


            16:38 – the collapses of the Twin Towers were not identical to verinage; the cores stood longer than the structure surrounding them, for instance. However, (1) verinage provides an empirical disproof of Wood’s “physics” (as if one were needed), and (2) in the Twin Towers, after the top sections had descended some way, internal collapses began which proceeded through the floor assemblies, which were mostly concrete.

            16:42 – I do not assume that collapse initiated with collapsing floors. I observe that collapse was preceded by perimeter bowing, and initiated with descent of the antenna (WTC1) and rapid perimeter buckling (WTC2). Then, observable descent of the top section makes it inevitable that successive floor assemblies must have been substantially decoupled from the frame or destroyed at the interface between the falling and stationary sections.

            I hope that’s all clear now, but there are none so blind as those who will not see.

  • Paul Barbara

    @ Paul Barbara
    April 17, 2017 at 23:42
    ‘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?…..’

    So, Clark, are we to expect more High Rise steel-framed buildings to come down any day now, at almost free-fall speed, as there are others like them? And thousands with the light-density sprayed-on fireproofing?

    • Clark

      Paul, that’s really very dishonest of you. That section was written by someone exposing that the Twin Towers fell suddenly and rapidly because they were of lightweight construction. They were NOT promoting “controlled demolition”.

      “are we to expect more High Rise steel-framed buildings to come down any day now, at almost free-fall speed, as there are others like them? And thousands with the light-density sprayed-on fireproofing?”

      If they are of such height and such lightweight construction, and suffer similar extensive damage and multi-floor fire, yes. Thankfully, that is very rare.

      Actually, the Twin Towers were rather extreme; they were the tallest buildings in the world. That matters, because any building is a balance between weight and strength. You can build taller by decreasing the weight, but decreasing the weight inevitably decreases the strength too. It especially decreases the resistance to fire, because to decrease weight but retain strength, steel is retained but concrete is omitted.

  • Clark

    Chandler measured the descent of the roof-line of the Twin Towers for the first three seconds.

    OK. Nikko, please give me a figure for the mass of the top section.

  • John Goss

    Clark will never understand. He wants to prove Judy Wood’s physics (which is everybody else’s physics except his) wrong. He cannot do that.

    “Eleven times its own weight is the highest figure I’ve seen for the limit of a floor assembly.”

    Where did you see that Clark?

    The cranes which hoisted the floors and the beams were supported by the floors and beams during erection as in photo 2 here.

    Only Clark can see what others can’t.

    “Clark wears glasses with lenses made of Kryptonian glass (initially salvaged from his rocket ship’s transparency dome) so he can fire his heat vision through them without damaging them.” Source: Wikipedia

    • Clark

      In the following film you can see the cranes mounted on the columns at the corners of the core. They were called Kangaroo Cranes, imported from Australia. The description begins at seven minutes. You can recognise the core corners by their diagonal bracing at 07:35:

      The floors of the open office space didn’t have cross-girders; just lightweight trusses with concrete poured on top. At 09:50 you can see that the floor truss assemblies required timber decking to prevent damage from the trolley-bucket that delivered the concrete for pouring and spreading.

      Clark Kent and Superman are what I was called by the bullies at my primary school. I remember one day on my way home, the gang leader and his understudy caught me for kicking a football at break time. The understudy held my hands behind my back and the gang leader punched me in the face.

      • John Goss

        Sorry to hear about the bullying you suffered at primary school. There is no excuse. But it happens. Anyway you can probably share the fun now you’re an adult. Nobody is going to physically bully you here, though you have threatened others including myself. Something like; “Look out if I ever see you again.” I laughed of course as one does at absurdity.

        Floors or core columns, they supported the cranes, and floors and core columns all came tumbling down in defiance of physics. In not being able to understand that you have got to excuse people who do, who have tried patiently to explain the science with videod experiments, but whose frustration has turned to sarcasm for which I am somewhat sorry. You are a difficult person to deal with because you have deliberately put yourself out on a limb in understanding the formulae for physics without understanding what would happen in practice. Among others I have tried to help you with this but you address me as though it is I who has the weird science.

        • Clark

          John, I do find myself very angry with you; I’m sorry to tell you this, but you display immense arrogance, you continually talk down to me, and you avoid any issue I raise which might demonstrate to you your own ignorance.

          But it runs deeper than that for me. As an only, adopted, child, from the age of four, I was indoctrinated as a Jehovah’s Witness because it was my adoptive mother’s religion. This was not a typical Christian upbringing. It was over two hours each Sunday, over two hours each Thursday, and over an hour each Tuesday. Additionally it included an hour or two home study, and many hours “out on the doors” preaching when it was school holidays. Many normal activities such as Christmas, birthdays and certain television programmes etc. were banned, and for many years I only met other Jehovah’s Witnesses. The indoctrination carried the threat of death at Armageddon, which was to occur when I’d have been between about ten and fourteen, when I was expecting my father to be killed since he was not a Jehovah’s Witness. It included typical indoctrination techniques including much repetition, and compulsory active participation including indoctrination of others.

          As I left “The Truth” in my mid teens onwards (the fear lasted years), it was only the certainties of science that offered me any counterbalance. I could prove that some of the Witnesses claims were false, and thus could not be God’s word. Physics turned out to be the subject I could understand best, so as you might imagine I learned it very well indeed, as demonstrated by my exam results.

          When you attack my abilities in physics, you attack the very core of what makes me, me. That, and your corruption of something that was a vital lifeline to me, your use of fake physics as if it were just another religion, to choose your sect according to your personal taste, is utterly infuriating to me, and at times I do indeed feel violent toward you.

          Please read this comment again very, very carefully. I am NOT a normal person. I have NOT had a normal life. And you have been offending me very, very deeply.

          • John Goss

            But Clark we all have to live in this world and get on with one another. When I first visited this blog I used to think that Clark is a very decent man, somebody I could get on with, somebody looking for alternatives to the greedy murderous world in which we live, somebody who has dealt in currencies like Hearts.

            I have read about your Jehovah Witness upbringing before and realise that for you it was a most traumatic experience. I do not share MSM vilification of any religious sect unless they are doing harm. One reason being the way Quakers in 17th century England were persecuted for their faith. You will not know this but I have known Jehovah’s Witnesses (more than one family members) myself and while their branch of Christianity does not appeal to me there is a lot of good in their philosophy like their concern for the planet and concern for animal welfare, and I have never met a Jehovah’s Witness who was aggressive.

            I’ve read some Watchtowers and some of the tracts dropped off by JWs. Nonetheless I rarely have time to sit and talk with them and agree that as a sect they are limited by the restrictions of the cult, and the decrees and dogma of the elders, and not being able to participate in the general activities of society, like Christmas is punitive to children. So I am pleased you managed to find a better way for yourself than The Truth. If formulaic physics helped extricate you from something that was causing you stress I can understand why you have such faith in it. Not many people are interested in physics, maths and the sciences, so your achieements in these subjects are commendable

            I may seem arrogant to you but often you seem, if not arrogant, at least self-conceited to me. Perhaps we are both at fault here. One part of me wants to reach out to you. Over 9/11 and one or two other issues I find this difficult. It’s like having the dogma of a religious sect rammed down my throat when I am an unbeliever in that particular official version. It makes me cross when I see a clearly intelligent and articulate man pumping out scenarios that do not, in practice, fit the science. Of course that is my opinion. I will agree that I may not have presented what I have written in the kindest manner. I apologise. Some of it is frustration. What you find immensely gratifying, trying to puzzle out in theory, I find boring. Engineering-wise I would much rather make or design something, or make a varitaion of an existing design to try and improve it. I am working on an idea for a more-modern Hollander Beater (used to break down fibres in papermaking, which is a hobby of mine). It might not work.

            Believe me Clark, the twin towers could not have fallen as they did from any top-down collapse. You can call it arrogance. But it could not happen in known science.

            “And you have been offending me very, very deeply.”

            Sorry Clark. I know I am not always one of the easiest of people to get on with when I believe I am right. I’m from Yorkshire. Let’s leave it at that. I hope some of the comments I have posted have contained elements that might help you visualise where I am coming from. You might not agree with them but in my mind they are what I perceive to be true. It’s late. Sleep well.

          • Clark

            Thanks for being kind.

            I don’t “have faith in formulaic physics”, and it isn’t an opinion. Twenty is bigger than eleven, is all; the topmost standing floor assembly HAD to fail (excepting cosmic coincidence), and that increased the twenty to twenty-one (less the dust). It really is as simple as that.

            You don’t understand, John. I’d stake my life on this. That may sound extreme, but we all stake our lives when we cross a high bridge or enter a large building. Those last two actually involve more risk that declaring Wood’s BBE to be wrong, or Chandler’s “downward acceleration” to be inapplicable to buildings.

          • glenn_uk

            I’d stake my life on this. That may sound extreme, but we all stake our lives when we cross a high bridge or enter a large building.

            This does not seem extreme at all. I thought you were going to say (upon reading “when we cross a…”) the example that first occurred to me – we stake our lives on our quick, intuitive gauging the likelihood of our survival every time we cross the road when traffic is flowing.

            How fast can I run, if necessary – more pertinently, how long before I could reach the other side? That car, or cars – how long until they reach me? What if they start accelerating, what does their potential look like as far as performance is concerned? And so on.

            We really do trust with our lives such considerations (those of us foolish enough to run across the road in traffic, anyway).

            Just as a note of clarification – Clark’s notes about the dust are certainly worthy of consideration, as hopefully my musings on momentum and KE were the other day. These were not points of contention as far as I were concerned, not arguments, simply observations.

            Let’s make our observations to each other, even jest or take the mick (no offence Paul!), but let’s not take it too seriously eh? Having lost several very close people in a few short years, I’m rapidly coming to the conclusion that “life’s too short” is not just a cliché.

          • Clark

            Glenn, I hadn’t thought of crossing the road. You’re right; staking my life isn’t extreme enough.

            I would stake my entire wealth, all my future income, and my liberty for the rest of my life on Judy Wood’s BBE contradicting Newton’s third law and conservation of momentum. I would stake the same on Chandler’s “downward acceleration” being applicable to a block of homogeneous solid, but inapplicable to a layered/latticed structure such as a building.

            I didn’t think of crossing the road because I was thinking in public engineering terms. Like the night we had a couple of hundred people queueing outside the venue, and we hadn’t opened the doors half an hour beyond the advertised opening time. That was because I was the technical manager, and I wouldn’t sign off to the promoter on the safety of the electrical sound and lighting installations. I couldn’t be sure our audience would be safe. Eventually a compromise was reached, some equipment was de-rigged and a ramp was placed over some cables, and we opened 48 minutes late. It didn’t stop the PA progressively destroying half its drive units but that was a different story, and not a safety issue.

            Been anywhere similar, John Goss?

          • Nikko

            Before you stake your entire wealth, it may be helpful to spell out clearly where you think Wood and Chandler went wrong.

          • Clark

            That PA guy was as slippery as John Goss. Every excuse in the book; kept changing the subject, impugning my ability – anything but deal with the issues. He just wanted to get down the pub.

            I’d also told him his PA sounded wrong. I was trying to do him a favour but he took it as an insult. The rig’s sound deteriorated in stages throughout the night. The only reason the event wasn’t a complete flop was that we’d hired two separate sound rigs for opposite ends of the hall.

            Me and the promoter visited the PA hire company a few days later. We weren’t happy; we’d paid in advance for a first class sound rig, and got safety issues and crap sound. “Oh, that guy was sacked when the rig came back” we were told. “He returned it with ten grand of damage”. He’d set it up with the bass amplifiers driving the mid speakers etc. and thereby burnt out half the speakers. I’d told him, but oh no, he knew better. He was qualified.

          • Clark

            Nikko, I just did. Try reading the comment again and telling me specifically what your query is.

            What operating system do you use?

          • Nikko

            Clark, I just want to understand why you think Wood and Chandler are wrong. If you have posted a clear analysis before, then please point to it. Alluding to it, like in the post below does not do it for me.

            Please bear in mind that I have no idea what non-formulaic physics is about and that I have no expertise in this discipline as it was not part of my physics O’level curriculum.

            What’s my operating system got to do with any of this?

          • Clark

            OK. Chandler’s “downward acceleration” first..

            I looked at it and thought; that looks too simple. So I thought about it. What does it actually mean in physical terms?

            What it says is that a mass A that has been supported by something below it B cannot accelerate downward through B unless something else weakens B.

            That means that NO building can ever collapse vertically. If A can’t accelerate down, it can’t move down at all, because it would need to accelerate in order to start moving. But surely buildings can collapse? So with my suspicion raised, I thought about it.

            Obviously, B has been supporting A so B needs to be weakened for A to fall. But could the movement of A itself weaken B? Hmm. Depends on B, doesn’t it? If B is just a solid block, there’s not much A could do to it. But what if B is a lattice? Now, that’s different. If A got moving at all, its impact on B could damage the top layer of lattice, giving A some distance to drop in which to accumulate velocity.
            _ _ _ _ _
            Now, you can challenge this in specific details, but think before you do. Could this happen? Maybe in ways other than the specific challenge you raised? Because loss of order is the way we expect things to go. Increase of entropy is thermodynamics; it’s merely statistical. There are always many, many ways that order can be disrupted, and generally only one way that it can remain.

          • Clark

            Regarding your operating system, I was curious, because it’s indicative of a person’s approach to problem-solving. I’m using a rather unusual GNU/Linux system called Trisquel. It isn’t supplied by any company and it has a rather small user-base, so if anything goes wrong I’ll probably need to fix it myself.

            The page I linked for you about asking questions was at – catb stands for the name of a book; the Cathedral And The Bazaar. The site belongs to ESR or Eric S Raymond, one of the pioneers of Open Source Software (also called Free Software by RMS) and author of said book, famous for being foundational in the Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) movement.

          • Nikko

            Sorry Clark, but I do not get your point re Chandler.

            A and B are one and the same, part of the same structure. For A to move with respect to B, the joining structure between them needs to be compromised, such as happens during verinage demolitions, using a wrecking ball or when hit by a plane. What happens next depends on the extent of the damage and the properties of the materials.

            What has this to do with Chandler?

          • Clark

            Chandler doesn’t deal with collapse initiation; he declared that after initiation, an accelerating collapse is impossible without explosives. Here’s Chandler’s paper; DownwardAccelerationOfWTC1.pdf


            From the abstract onwards, he treats the system as two “blocks”; the portion that fell, and the rest. On page 9 he presents a WTC1-ish looking “diagram”, but in fact this is a one-dimensional model, the only spacial dimension being the vertical. Proper engineering models have to have three spacial dimensions, of course.

            My “A” refers to Chandler’s “upper block” and my “B” refers to Chandler’s “lower block”.

            I’m sure you said you accepted this paper. We discussed it previously. You defended it by making additional stipulations that the paper itself doesn’t include.

            “What happens next depends on the extent of the damage and the properties of the materials.”

            …and how the materials are arranged in space; ie. the geometry.

          • Nikko

            Chandler could not have said that “and accelerating collapse is impossible” because he measured the collapse to accelerate at 64% of g.

            So far all I understand of your criticism of Chandler is that on page 9 he drew a one-dimensional sketch. I would call it a two-dimensional sketch but let’s not split hairs. As far as I know gravity acts in one dimension.

            What did Chandler get wrong by not drawing his sketch as an isometric or otherwise not including multiple dimensions in his analysis?

          • Clark

            What is shown on the page is a two dimensional sketch, but the mathematical representation is one dimensional, because only the vertical dimension appears in the formulae. The “width” shown on Chandler’s “diagram” shouldn’t really be there since it is not referred to anywhere. It wouldn’t change the physics if Chandler had drawn only the arrows representing forces. It would be less misleading.

            Chandler does not claim outright that explosives were necessary for an accelerating collapse. However, he does imply it very strongly, as follows:

            Page 1 (Abstract):

            “The downward acceleration of the upper block can be understood as a consequence of, not the cause of, the disintegration of the lower section of the building”.

            Page 10:

            “It is difficult to imagine how an upper block exerting a force of only 36% of its static weight could crush the larger, stronger, undamaged lower section of the building to the ground, when the building, at any level, was designed to support several times the weight above it. Assuming a safety factor of between 3 and 5 [12], the observed acceleration implies that close to 90% of the strength of the lower section of the building must have been eliminated by forces other than the supposed “pile driver,” suggesting that some sort of controlled demolition was at work”.

            Page 11, near end of second para:

            “Something other than the falling block (explosives?) must be destroying the structural integrity of the interface zone so that it offers only a small fraction of the resistance it was designed to provide”.

            If I remember the “Pile Driver” theory correctly, Chandler has provided a good refutation of it, but in doing so he has mislead the unwary into believing that “controlled demolition” was necessary to explain what was observed.

          • Nikko

            OK, so the two dimensional sketch is not the problem. Then you quote Chandler several times but do not explain what he got wrong and why.

          • Nikko

            Gravity indeed was not the only force. Chandler is aware of this fact and takes it into account

          • Clark

            By presenting a one dimensional model (vertical only), Chandler discards variations in vertical support across the horizontal cross-section. The upper portion can indeed greatly damage and thereby weaken the lower portion (permitting acceleration), if the upper portion’s weight and momentum come to bear upon the floor assemblies, instead of upon the vertical columns. The columns were designed to take great vertical loads. The floor assemblies were not.

          • Nikko

            There is no way the upper section could have shifted as a block such that its weight would have been carried by the floor. Do not forget that steel is ductile and bends and all the sections were bolted or welded together so it stayed as a block at least for the first three seconds.

          • Clark

            Nikko, please express that in terms of what you think DID happen, rather than what didn’t. On the videos we see the bowing, we see the top section tip, and then descent begins. Where do the bottom ends of the upper sections of columns land? Or if some of them bend, what happens to them next?

          • Nikko

            Stay focused Clark – it is you explaining where, in your opinion, Chandler went wrong.

            Why complicate things with floor slabs – after all, they were lightweight and played no role in supporting the vertical structural loads.

          • Clark

            Chandler’s paper claims that it is impossible for any object to accelerate under gravity through any structure that previously supported it, unless some external effect “(explosives?)” weakens the structure. That is obviously and demonstrably false.

            You have resorted to defending this by claiming that something is impossible when in fact it is overwhelmingly likely, but you haven’t even presented a theory for your claim.

          • Nikko

            If Chandlers conclusion is onviously and demonstrably false then why are you not even attempting to demonstrate its falsehood. I guess because you do not know and continue with the pretence because its suits your purposes.

            I think we can declare Chandlers falsehood not proved.

            Shall we move onto Wood or will that be the same outcome and waste of time?

          • Clark

            OK, so take some glass shelves, like this:


            …place, say, a 3kg lump of lead on the top glass shelf; the product specs say the cabinet can hold 21kg of “spread weight”. So we have a structure supporting a mass. Pick the weight up enough so it’ll smash the top shelf when you drop it. Are you telling me it won’t accelerate overall?

            And before you start propagandising for “controlled demolition” again, remember that the height between shelves is arbitrary. The cabinet could be several times higher with the same number of shelves.

            Nikko, you’ve basically just demonstrated that you’re only looking at this the way you want to see it. Of course Chandler’s argument is wrong. Buildings can collapse.

          • Clark

            Actually, only the top shelf needs to be there at all, in order to fulfil Chandler’s starting condition that the structure initially support the mass. Chandler said nothing about the geometry of the structure; his argument is very general. Like I said, Chandler’s is a one dimensional model.

          • Clark

            Still not happy? Double or triple the width of the shelves (the Twin Tower floor assemblies spanned 18m). It still conforms to Chandler’s initial conditions.

          • Nikko

            Clark, for the umpteenth time, I am not demonstrating anything – it is you who promised to show that Chandler was wrong.

            I agree, if you take a lump of lead of enough mass and drop it from a sufficient height onto a glass shelf, then it will smash through the shelf and possibly the shelves below it. It will not destroy the supporting structure for the shelves.

            Somehow in your eagerness to prove Chandler wrong you picked (as is your habit) a completely inappropriate and irrelevant analogy, despite the fact that I pointed out above that the floor trusses played no part in carrying the vertical structural loads. The structural load was carried by the outside steel perimeter and the internal core; both continuous all the way up from the bottom. And no matter what did or did not happen to the floors, the vertical structures could not and would not have been compromised by the failing floor trusses, just like the supporting sides of the shelf cabinet would not be compromised by the breaking shelves.

            This kind of discussion where you are constantly going off at a tangent is meaningless and a waste of time. You wrote recently that it is your objective to reduce the amount of bunk on here and here you are spouting it like there was no tomorrow. Out of respect for some of the other stuff you’ve done on this blog I am not going to speculate about your motives.

          • Clark

            Nikko, we are discussing Chandler’s “Downward Acceleration” paper. If the glass shelves example is is less than entirely consistent with Chandler’s initial conditions, please point out where.

            Incidentally, I know a bit of psychology, too, and “I am not going to speculate about your motives” is a covert suggestion. Don’t think of elephants. See? You can’t read that sentence without elephants being suggested. Readers, please take note.

          • Clark

            I repeat, we are discussing Chandler’s physics, it is either true or false. “The building” does not appear in Chandler’s physics, there’s just a WTC1-ish looking “sketch” as you called it, from which nothing appears in the formulae.

            Chandler’s physics is wrong.

        • Nikko

          Chandler treats the upper section of the building as a solid block. As you like using analogies , the correct one would be to stack two shelf units on top of each other and observe how the upper one falls through and destroys the lower one under gravity alone. It will not happen.

          • Clark

            I repeat, we are discussing Chandler’s physics, it is either true or false. “The building” does not appear in Chandler’s physics, there’s just a WTC1-ish looking “sketch” as you called it, from which nothing appears in the formulae.

            Chandler’s physics is wrong.

            Thanks for creating a more local “Reply” button.

          • Clark

            You’ve answered yourself:

            “Chandler treats the upper section of the building as a solid block”

            But the building WASN’T a solid block. It was 95% air space, and that’s why Chandler’s model is inapplicable to it.

          • Nikko

            Chandler’s model is a simplification but it is perfectly applicable because you can apply it to each individual vertical support column

          • Clark

            I shall restate my motives for the record:

            TRUTH, Justice, Peace.

            Chandler’s paper has convinced many people that Newtonian physics renders the collapse of the Twin Towers impossible without explosives. That is FALSE, which is the opposite of TRUE.

          • Clark

            “Chandler’s model is a simplification but it is perfectly applicable because you can apply it to each individual vertical support column”

            Ah ha! But that requires that the support columns of the top section remain in line with those of the bottom section. What if they don’t?


          • Nikko

            I thought we were discussing physics, not your motives. Still, I agree with TRUTH, JUSTICE, PEACE. I suggest you also include PROOF.

          • Nikko

            When the top section of a support column is not in line with the bottom section, then there will be exactly zero load on the bottom section.

            Your sketch you linked to is a 2-dimensional sketch which does not represent reality. See your criticism of Chandler’s similar 2-dimensional sketch.

          • Clark

            “When the top section of a support column is not in line with the bottom section, then there will be exactly zero load on the bottom section”

            That depends whether it’s in contact with anything else or not.

            “Your sketch you linked to is a 2-dimensional sketch which does not represent reality”

            I don’t claim it represents reality (we’d need FEA to approach that). It’s a damn sight better than Chandler’s, though.

            “I suggest you also include PROOF”

            Well I think we’ve disproved the applicability of Chandler’s “downward acceleration”.

          • Nikko

            Clark, you accused Chandler of fakery so the proof is on you. If you think you have proved or disproved anything you are thoroghly deluded.


            I have had enough. I know where’s a pint waiting for me.

          • Clark

            Well, we should have finished with Chandler. His “downward acceleration” does not rule out collapse under gravity; ie. his claim is false.

            Enjoy your pint.

          • Clark

            Nikko, for when you return to this thread… If you’ve accepted Chandler’s “downward acceleration” for a long time, feel free to take a few days to get used to the new terrain. Acceptance of that argument is a thought-blocker; there are many different ideas it prevents one from developing, and it takes time to adjust. Wood’s BBE can wait a while if you like.

      • John Goss

        “John, how did you get this wrong? By misrepresenting the cranes as mounted on the floor truss assemblies, you have given the false impression that the floor truss assemblies were very strong, even before concrete was poured onto them. Were you seeing what you wanted to see?”

        You accuse Nikko of putting words into your mouth yet you are doing exactly the same here. I wrote that the cranes were mounted on the floors, which they were, admittedly the floors of the inner core. I never tried to give the impression that the floor sections were stronger than they were. They were however strong enough to fulfil their design purpose until explosives brought down the towers.

        • Clark

          No, the cranes were mounted on core column assemblies, not floors. In the photo you linked, it merely happened to be a point in the construction when the surrounding floor was level with the the bases of the cranes; this was not the case most of the time as other pictures show.

          There are many reasons that cranes were not mounted on floors. Firstly, there was very little floor in the cores, which were mostly to become ducts and lift-shafts. Secondly, the floor would not have had nearly as much strength as the core corner column assemblies with their diagonal bracing. Thirdly, a massive weight would have been necessary at the bases of the cranes to provide stability had the cranes not been attached to the vertical columns. Fourthly, construction of vertical structure proceeded ahead of construction of floors.

          The floor assemblies were indeed strong enough to perform their design purpose, but they were impacted from above by a huge falling mass that they were never designed to arrest.

          • Clark

            I wrote – “there was very little floor in the cores, which were mostly to become ducts and lift-shafts”

            Those corner core assemblies would have been useless as rooms because the diagonal bracing would have obstructed any doorway. Therefore, I predict that those corners were never floored, and instead used as ducts.

          • John Goss

            Taking these points one at a time.

            “Fourthly, construction of vertical structure proceeded ahead of construction of floors.”

            Quite right. The vertical construction did no need the floors. There would have been no purpose to the construction without the floors but it could have been done.

  • Clark

    Watch this fucking crisis actor as he pretends to remember his comrades “killed” on 9/11, wandering around all the “smashed fire trucks” at the Fresh Kills “debris site”. Fucking conspirator.

    Of course we know all the fire trucks were smashed at a Hollywood site and secretly transported to Fresh Kills, because there’s no way they could have been crushed by the dustified steel and concrete, molecularly disassociated by secret nuclear devices on 9/11.

    [/sarcasm]. Truthers can make you sick.

  • Clark

    “Where’s all the steel? There’s not nearly enough debris. You can see them deliberately smashing up cars to make it look like they were crushed. Look at how they brought down the buildings to do minimal damage to the surrounding area, specially the nice, neat pile from Building 7. This is a “Fire Line” video, and we know the fire-fighters were all in on it. They’re the ones that demolished Building 7 so Silverstein could claim that insurance, too. We heard him tell them “pull it”, and he spoke to Netanyahu every day. Where did the Towers go?”

    Ground Zero WTC Debris Field 9/11, 9/12, & 9/13

    Don’t watch it, folks, unless you can handle cognitive dissonance. In fact, just don’t watch it; it was probably made in Hollywood.

  • Clark

    9/11 is my playground
    I can invent whatever I like
    About these three thousand deaths.

    Iraq could be my playground
    Sirte and Gaza too
    But they speak a different language there
    So I know of no anomalies.

  • Clark

    Julian Assange told us that “courage is contagious”. There’s no sign of it on this thread. I refute point after point with evidence or sound theory, yet no one has the courage to step out of line. Here lie the roots of gangsterism and fascism.

      • Clark

        I am towing no one’s line. I’m finding evidence and applying physics. If that was indicative of controlled demolition, I would say so, as I do about WTC7. But it does not. Neither do I accept “crush down then crush up”, because the core was not crushed and the majority of perimeter columns were not folded/ I tow no one’s line.

        YOU are towing some Truther line. You defend Chandler’s invalid “downward acceleration”. You do not have the courage to admit Wood’s contradictions of Newton’s laws. You seem to be too scared of being jeered at by the other members of the gang, of which you are voluntarily a member.

        • Deepgreenpuddock

          I think you should all know that one toes the line not tows the line. Also it is Kowtow not ‘cow tow’ Pedanterally yours.

      • Paul Barbara

        @ Nikko April 21, 2017 at 17:36
        I don’t think he is confused; I suspect he know’s bloody well what he is doing. But, luckily, to no effect, among those of us who are trying to find and expose the truth.

        • Clark

          I’m not an agent; just someone who knows that twenty is bigger than eleven. There are an awful lot like me, which is why so few take you seriously.

          • John Goss

            Clark, why don’t you write to Judy Wood and tell her where you think her billiard ball theory is wrong? Please be polite. And see what her answer is. But if you rub her up the wrong way you are no likely to get any response.

            You cannot find support for your views, which I am sure now you seriously hold, because they do not stand up. Instead you attack the person, sometimes in a most devious way. Do you then think they should address what they consider to be wrong?


            I would unlikely have got on with Dale Carnegie but if you read something like this it might help you with your problems. This is kindly meant and if you can imagine that I might not have got on with Carnegie you might. Anyway it has helped thousands if not more. That’s official.


          • Clark

            John, if you didn’t keep running away and changing the subject, I wouldn’t post things like that. Did you block me at your blog after that? Because I couldn’t post the next time.

            Now, please don’t run away. In Wood’s BBE, a falling floor lands on a stationary floor. What happens?

          • John Goss

            “Did you block me at your blog after that? Because I couldn’t post the next time.”

            No. Are you running Firefox? I got a message this morning that I could not post a comment on News Junkie Post website. It would not surprise me if voices from the left are being suppressed.

            “Now, please don’t run away. In Wood’s BBE, a falling floor lands on a stationary floor. What happens?”

            I haven’t got time for more nonsense Clark. I have just written a blogpost cobbled from comments made here. You should write to Judy Wood. Or take it up with glenn_uk who understands physics. Sorry. Very busy.

          • Clark

            In the meantime, (1) I understand physics, so I don’t need to ask Glenn. But I will. Glenn often isn’t here for days.

            (2) I’m using Abrowser, which is made from Firefox but with all proprietary code removed, including the DRM module. My Abrowser has the NoScript extension which blocks Javascript, and I use an ad-blocker. And yes, there are many sites that are becoming difficult to use with such a set-up. WordPress isn’t what it was, but it still isn’t as bad as the alternatives.

          • John Goss

            The message I got was:

            “This connection is not secure. Logins entered here could be compromised. Learn More.”

            Yesterday I was scrolling down FB messages to see what I thought might be worth reading and noticed that the cursor skipped over Craig Murray’s comment. I tried several times but still it skipped it. No time Clark. I understand her physics.

          • Clark

            Let me know when you have a free hour or two, and I’ll try to be available to show you where Wood’s physics is wrong. OR, if you don’t want to know that her physics is wrong, please be honest and say so.
            _ _ _ _ _

            That message could mean that they’re using http instead of https at their end, which would probably be misconfiguration (possibly introduced by an external party)

            It could also mean that there’s a problem with the security certificate. Fixing the problem at their end is beyond my competence, but the following is not. Try going to their home page, and from there to the login. Sometimes only the more popular pages properly connect incoming browsers to the site’s security certificate. This is similar to the security warning you got on Wood’s graph that I linked the other day; going straight to the image generates a warning whereas going through the page does not.

            No matter what, the insecure connection just means that your newsjunkiepost login details could be copied, ie. whoever got the copy could log in with your details.

  • Clark

    Look what you people have done:

    “Adherents of the 9/11 Truth movement are conspiracy theorists who dispute the mainstream account of the September 11 attacks of 2001.
    – …
    – Many adherents of the 9/11 Truth movement allege that the buildings of the World Trade Center were destroyed by controlled demolition, a theory of major importance for the 9/11 Truth movement.

    – – – – –

    How I’d love to go to Wikipedia and change that, but in conscience I could not do so because it’s right. There really was a Truth Movement once. There were the Jersey Girls, and the resignations from the 9/11 Commission, and the declaration that it was “set up to fail”.

    But your jeering and your constant accusations that all who see through Twin Tower Demolition Theory are secret agents has corrupted the informational environment. You fools have won; you’ve drowned out and driven away the reasonable voices.

    Sour congratulations. So many thing on that page which are genuine; all dismissed as “conspiracy theory”, and all because of the misguided myopia of people like you.

    “Eleven is greater than twenty,
    eleven is greater than twenty”

    Goodnight George Orwell.

      • Clark

        Thanks Glenn. Wood’s BBE has been up for well over a decade; I’m sure John can wait a wee while longer. Don’t induce stack overflow or dereference any critical pointers.

        • John Goss

          Clark, Wood’s physics in her examples is correct. I just thought you would rather hear it from glenn-uk who has a lot more patience with you and therefore your discussion is likely to be more fruitful. It was you who wanted an answer. Not me. I know the answer.

        • Clark

          John, I disagree in the strongest possible terms.

          She states the formulae correctly in the appendices, but her description (BBE) completely contradicts the formulae.

          Please let’s go through it step by step.

    • Clark

      I hope they get their resolution.

      I mention that yet again because people seem to assume that if I accept progressive collapse of the Twin Towers I must do so for WTC7. I don’t. Building 7’s collapse is most intriguing.

      Dutch demolition expert Danny Jowenko was of similar opinion, but very oddly, some Truthers think that Jowenko was murdered for what he said, whereas me saying the same thing must mean I’m a murderous secret agent. Truthers might gain more credibility if they practised a bit of consistency.

  • KingofWelshNoir

    Clarke, I’m not sure if I can tell the others that you are not an agent, I need to clear it with my Handler first 🙂

    Yes, I was aware that you can view the history of Wikipedia edits, in fact a while back I remember seeing some stuff online about how American Airlines had allegedly changed the Wikipedia entry on 9/11 to state that Flights 11 and 77 did not fly on that day. You can read about it here if you like:

    This is a common Truther meme, of course, but obviously it’s ridiculous to suggest that American Airlines would make this change. So what does it mean? Well, it looks to me like one of the many bear traps put out for Truthers. I seem to remember you saying on an earlier post that these things were very complicated and this you attributed to the work of God, (I think I remember that right?) Well, I agree it is very complicated, but I attribute it to the work of spooks. It seems to me the people who designed 9/11 spent a lot of time creating this vast massively confusing labyrinth of lies and half truths and misinformation to prevent seekers after the truth ever finding the Minotaur at the heart of the labyrinth.

    In addition, they made these great traps for us seekers, one such trap I believe is the Larry Silverstein ‘Pull-it’ remark. I don’t believe for a second that was accidental, he knew exactly what he was doing: he was making an utterance that seemed on the surface to support the controlled demolition thesis, but at the same time containing a piece of nonsense that would discredit it. By which I mean the idea that the fire service rig buildings for demolition, or that having done so, they ring up the building owner to decide whether to pull the building or not, that’s clearly nonsense. But we Truthers excitedly jumped onto the quote, not realizing that it was a trap. (At least I did in the early years before I understood how this worked.)

    I recall a similar thing happened on 7/7. Briefly a report appeared in one of the Jerusalem newspapers saying that Benjamin Netanyahu had been warned that morning not to travel by Scotland Yard. The point being to discredit anyone who suggested Israeli involvement in 7/7 The report only lasted a few minutes before being pulled, but it was enough for the Truthers to jump on it and get excited. But of course the idea that Scotland Yard would warn Netanyahu and only him, or indeed any anyone expected he would be traveling by tube that morning is clearly nonsense.

    A lot of this stuff seems very sophisticated and reveals that the people who make this stuff know a lot about how to manipulate us. And yet paradoxically some of it seems quite crude. For example the hijacker’s passport found in the rubble of the World Trade Center, that was so obviously planted but it seems to me very crude thing to do and I wonder if the people planting it (perhaps those dancing in the Israelis which is also very crude ) were a different set of people to the smarter spooks who create these sophisticated traps and labyrinths to ensnare us in?

    Here endeth my sermon for today.

    • Clark

      KingofWelshNoir, thanks, Did you realise that it was me that made those edits? There was no mention of torture on that page until I did so. I added other links and citations, too. I ensured my edits were verifiable and well referenced, and true to Wikipedia rules, nearly two years later my changes have not been removed. You wrote “it’s not even denied”. As you can see, it’s a little more complicated than that because it was me that undisguised it at the Wikipedia page you linked, and my supporting sources were from the mainstream media.

      My reference to it being God making things complex was in answer to Paul Barbara, who is religious; I was simply “talking his language”. For me, “God” is a merely human label for “that which creates physical reality”, and is clearly beyond our limited understanding. Certainly, spooks aren’t responsible for the resonance in the carbon nucleus, without which the universe would be insufficiently complex to support life:

      You wrote – “It seems to me the people who designed 9/11 spent a lot of time creating this vast massively confusing labyrinth of lies and half truths and misinformation to prevent seekers after the truth ever finding the Minotaur at the heart of the labyrinth”.

      Ah, you’re looking for The Devil, but outside of our own hearts. Yet you can watch the labyrinth being constructed, right here on this thread. What happens to me or Kempe whenever we expose or challenge a piece of disinformation? We’re insulted and accused of being agents, and several more pieces of disinformation are collected, displayed and promoted in support of that case. As you also wrote: “it was enough for the Truthers to jump on it and get excited” – actually, it makes no difference to the outcome whether someone carefully designs such an incident, or if it just arises at random. It’s our taste for sensationalism which acts as the amplifier, the same attraction to sensationalism that sells tabloids and popularises idiot TV and Alex Jones. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn: –

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

      We each contribute to evil in ways we’re not aware of and don’t even understand.
      _ _ _ _ _ _

      You probably didn’t see, but I posted some info about that Silverstein quote, many pages back. The fire department chief denies that he ever made the alleged call to Silverstein. Yes, as a New York property developer Silverstein had an obvious motive for sparking demolition theories, especially if the buildings were weak, overloaded or poorly maintained. Trump (another property developer) claims to be a friend of Silverstein, and must have been one of the first to suggest that explosives would be required to bring down the Twin Towers, in a TV interview that very afternoon.

      Of course, no one thanked me for my trouble. Just called me a spook.

      • Clark

        Grief, it’s so easy to bork the formatting. Sorry folks. See? Errors creep in. That one doesn’t seem to suggest malicious intent, but that’s just luck.

      • Clark

        KingofWelshNoir on the seeming design behind 9/11 factoids:

        “It seems to me the people who designed 9/11 spent a lot of time creating this vast massively confusing labyrinth of lies and half truths and misinformation to prevent seekers after the truth ever finding the Minotaur at the heart of the labyrinth”

        Fred Hoyle, on the improbability of a resonance in the carbon nucleus:

        Would you not say to yourself, “Some super-calculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly minuscule. A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”

        • KingofWelshNoir

          Clarke, I am familiar as a layman with this notion that the universe seems so implausibly finely calibrated for the appearance of life, that some people have called it, half jokingly, a put up job. I believe the official name for it is

          I find it fascinating but cannot see any connection between that and the clever psychological chicanery of the false flag designers. They seem worlds apart to me.

          My understanding, too, is if the universe were a simulation, like a computer game, we would expect to find precisely this ‘fine-tuning’, would we not? Because the Simm designers would keep trying out different recipes of starting conditions until they found one that led to a universe that led to life.

          • Clark

            The reason I posted the quote of Hoyle was just its similarity to your idea of some overarching design to 9/11. Historically, people have ascribed almost everything to “intelligent design”, but bit by bit, explanations have been found for – well, just how big is the body of science these days? I doubt that a single individual could even read all the papers at the rate they are now produced:


            Just because we have no good explanation of the resonance in the carbon nucleus doesn’t mean that if I can’t find my keys, God must have hidden them.

          • Clark

            Why assume it was “spooks” who edited the Wikipedia entries for flights 11 and 77? All sorts of people love starting conspiracy theories. Why assume that Silverstein’s “pull it” remark was part of an overarching plan? He and Trump had obvious motives for encouraging “controlled demolition” theories.

            The world is a complex place; there are several billion scheming humans in it, before even considering impulsive behaviour, random occurrences, odd coincidences, etc.

          • glenn_uk

            KoWN / Clark – an interesting discussion. It is most refreshing to have views expressed in a civil manner – all too rare these days.

            KoWN pointed out the “notion that the universe seems so implausibly finely calibrated for the appearance of life” and so on, but surely we would not be here to ponder it, had it not been?

            What’s given me pause for thought over the years is if a few irrational numbers – such as the gravitational constant G, the charge of an electron, the value of PI, the Planck constant, and so on, were even a tiny bit different, then the universe would be utterly and unrecognisably changed. Naturally, such conditions would have no chance of supporting our form of life.

            Then again – as mentioned – we would not be here to criticise it, were it not the way it was!

            Take the value of something like PI – it’s an irrational number. It literally does go on forever, and crops up all over the place as a fundamental construct of our universe. If that were a little different, we would not have life (as least as we know it). So how come this infinitely long number is _just_ right for us?

            How about this possibility – there are an infinite number of universes, which all simultaneously co-exist. PI is different in all of them. That infinitely long number just happened to hit the sweet spot for us in our universe – together with a bunch of other such constants – which is the only reason we’re here to wonder about it.§

          • Clark

            Pi doesn’t originate in the physical universe; somehow it emerges directly out of maths, like the Mandelbrot set does. Such things seem to have an existence beyond physical reality, as does maths itself, come to that. God knows what that means.

            I don’t go for multiple universes, nor the many worlds interpretation of quantum physics. It’s deeply unsatisfying to require an infinitude of moribund universes just so some good ones can exist.

            I think our universe came to be “finely tuned for life” through something like quantum sum-over-histories. Probably mind or awareness is the primary source of it all. In the Copenhagen interpretation, it’s conscious observation that collapses the wave-function, turning the cloud of possibilities into reality. So I think the universe coming into being is the same process as consciousness developing within it. The omniscient conscious awareness – God, if you like (or Einstein’s “Old One”) – is the eventual “product” – at the future end of time, from our point of view.

            God is that which creates, but is also the end result of universal evolution. Creation is ongoing, and we are part of it, and contribute to it. The Creator has to not exist yet, or creation couldn’t be occurring. God has to both exist and not exist.

            “I think mysticism might be characterized as the study of those propositions which are equivalent to their own negations. The Western point of view is that the class of all such propositions is empty. The Eastern point of view is that this class is empty if and only if it isn’t”.

            Raymond Smullyan.

          • glenn_uk

            “I don’t go for multiple universes, nor the many worlds interpretation of quantum physics. It’s deeply unsatisfying to require an infinitude of moribund universes just so some good ones can exist.

            Seems that you’re putting the cart before the horse there – does evolution “care” about its more unfortunate creations, the blunders, the hideous mistakes that are thrown up? It just “is”. No values, no morality. Damned if I can find it now, but a philosopher wrote that the overall moral balance in the world, the notion that suffering balances out pleasure, can be judged by asking the following question:

            “Does the suffering and horror of an animal being eaten by another, match the pleasure of that animal which is eating its meal?”

            I paraphrase quite a bit, no doubt. The point is fairly clear, nonetheless.

            What about the universes – who says any of them are supposed to be good? We know an infinitesimally small part of this one, and it’s hardly ideal. It exists, that has to be sufficient.

            Pi arises out of maths, but also through physical observation. These are not abstract constructs, Pi is woven into everything. I do not have the least clue as to why. Perhaps Pi – rather than 42 – is really the Ultimate Answer to the question, and it’s been staring us in the face for thousands of years. But nobody has managed to understand it yet.

          • Clark

            “does evolution “care” about its more unfortunate creations, the blunders, the hideous mistakes that are thrown up?”

            My feeling is that there are suspiciously few of those. Even a world like Io, about as close a physical embodiment of the Christian concept of hell as one could imagine, has incredible beauty and fantastic intellectual attraction. And try looking closely at slugs; do they really need individually unique mosaicked patterns laid out like the paint job of a custom dragster? And I bet sex is really great for slugs.

            “Does the suffering and horror of an animal being eaten by another, match the pleasure of that animal which is eating its meal?”

            The philosopher asked a very loaded question; maybe he’d had a bad day. Each animal lives an entire lifetime, eating regularly, yet it only has to die once, and when it does it feeds many other organisms. It’s like the loaves and fishes looked at from that perspective; how can there possibly be enough meals to keep everything going?

          • Clark

            We tend to look at such things from a human perspective, and unfortunately humans’ most innate talents seem to be deceiving, manipulating and exploiting each other. Maybe we’ll grow out of it. We seem to be doing so. That’s another suspiciously good thing about the universe; whether looked at from a religious or evolutionary perspective, it just keeps getting better and better, in apparent defiance of thermodynamics. We have no good explanation for that.

          • KingofWelshNoir


            The retort, ‘Yes obviously the universe is that way because otherwise we wouldn’t be here to witness it,’ is, I believe, called the Weak Anthropic Principle.

            Philosopher John Leslie described it in his 1989 book Universes thus: “A man in front of a firing squad of one hundred riflemen is going to be pretty surprised if every bullet misses him. Sure he could say to himself, ‘Of course they all missed; that makes perfect sense, otherwise I wouldn’t be here to wonder why they all missed.’ But anyone in his or her right mind is going to want to know how such an unlikely event occurred.”

            The answer is, of course, that the material universe is illusory, a dream created by consciousness.
            The universe is a sea of mind stuff, and each ‘brain’ is a little stick in the lake that creates a temporary eddy called life. We emerge from the main, we swirl around a bit, post some thoughts on Craig’s blog, then the stick is removed and we return to big sea of consciousness.


          • KingofWelshNoir

            Option 2.

            What if the universe is a computer simulation, similar to World of Warcraft, but infinitely more complex?

            If such simulations are possible, and they almost certainly are, then the proliferating simulations would so massively outnumber the real thing that it becomes overwhelmingly statistically likely that we are living in one.

            This has very disturbing implications. Because at some point we too will acquire sufficient computing power to simulate universes.

            And when we do, the gods will be forced to take a simple computer housecleaning act.

            And switch us off.
            Delete the file.

            Thus, the end of the world will not be a bang, not even a whimper, but just the chime of a rebooting computer.

            Everything that ever happened since the dawn of time will have no more substance than a Microsoft Word file you deleted twenty years ago and cannot remember a single detail of.

            Pretty gloomy, right?

            Apparently it’s about 30 years away.

          • Clark

            Apparently, you can’t just delete reality. Quantum information isn’t that easy to get rid of, though that also raises the question of where it came from.

          • Clark

            Does it make sense to say that “we” are living “in” a simulation? Wouldn’t that mean that we are a simulation? Does that mean our awareness is simulated? Who or what is experiencing this simulation? Part of the simulation itself?

            I think these philosophers and physicists are wrong. The quantum nature of reality is inevitable if we have free will. It’s probably silly to call such a system “simulated”, but if it is, then the custodians of the simulation are subject to the same inevitability, if they have free will.

            Doesn’t this come down to the competing theories of quantum entanglement versus hidden variables ie. the Bell inequality? Because the Aspect experiment settled that in favour of quantum entanglement.

        • Clark

          KoWN, thanks. That’s why I pointed out that the IP address for those edits is registered to my ISP. I’m Clark42 at Wikipedia. I must have been feeling paranoid or something because I obviously didn’t log in.

          I think it also shows that Wikipedia isn’t just “run by the puppet-masters”, which is another common conspirological meme. Us ordinary folk can and do make a difference at Wikipedia, though our opposition have greater resources. And the opposition aren’t all one body, either. For instance, Usmanov almost certainly pays a PR company to sanitise his page, which has nothing to do with the US “patriots” who work to slant 9/11 articles.

        • Clark

          I have many objections to conspirology.

          It makes people give up. If people assume (as many do) that Wikipedia is “controlled by the puppet-masters”, they don’t bother going and editing it.

          It encourages lazy thinking. If people assume (as many do) that every fact regarding, say, 9/11 can be attributed to the action of spooks, they don’t bother looking deeper, and maybe finding out something important.

          It makes people dismissive. If people assume (as many do) that arguing against, say, demolition of the Twin Towers or “chemtrails” proves a commenter to be a spook, they disregard important information from that commenter.

          • Clark

            It make people biased. If they think every aspect of something has been arranged by some “hidden hand”, they look for things which seem to confirm that, and when they find one they publicise it, along with their suggestions.

            It makes people cluster into “gangs”, to ridicule and discredit normal members of the public like me.

            It’s intellectually very unhealthy, but even saying that will cause certain readers to assume I must be working for Cass Sunstein.

      • Clark

        These philosophers and physicists; they’re not just trying to salvage determinism, are they? That crops up repeatedly. Many unevidenced expansions of reality have been proposed to try and escape quantum weirdness. People get attached to the clear-cut, “common-sense” feelings they get from classical physics, and feel deeply unsatisfied when they find that reality isn’t like that. So they propose all this extraneous stuff to try and get back in their comfort zone.

        They don’t get reincarnated or go to heaven or hell when they die they just get recycled as robots.

        • Clark

          That’s why you get so many versions of Microsoft Word and Excell and PowerPoint etc.; all those pedantic, officious, tick-box mentalities have to go somewhere.

  • KingofWelshNoir


    “Does it make sense to say that “we” are living “in” a simulation? Wouldn’t that mean that we are a simulation? Does that mean our awareness is simulated? Who or what is experiencing this simulation? Part of the simulation itself?”

    My understanding is, it would be like World of Warcraft where the people in it have awareness. So it doesn’t matter whether they are ‘living’, they certainly have the impression that they are. They would be aware, and so would the creators of the Sim. Although my feeling is, the Creators perished aeons ago and the computer running the Sim was left running in an empty room, for ever…

    If you are remotely interested just Google ‘Simulated universe’, there is a surprising amount of discussion about it. Incidentally, Quantum entanglement makes complete sense in a Simulated Universe because distance is an illusion – I mean the man in the space ship travels a million light years while still inside the computer. It is only baffling if you believe in a material universe in which space, time and distance are real.

    • Clark

      KoWN, I feel pretty confident in assuring you there are no entities within World of Warcraft that are aware. There are just patterns of numbers, which are processed by the hardware in accordance with the software. It’s a similar confusion as thinking that a clock “knows” the time.

      I’ve seen one of the “simulated universe” films; I got it from YouTube. I know there’s a debate going on, but I’m happy with my prediction; to account for quantum weirdness in “our universe” ie. the proposed simulation, they’ll just have to move it into “the universe of the creators of the simulation”. The quantum nature of reality is more than just action-at-a distance. It is about unknowablity itself. It’s a fundamental limit that is also a fundamental enabler, and, seemingly paradoxically, it is inseparable from the freedom or ability to transcend pre-existing limits.

      • KingofWelshNoir

        Hey, I know the avatars in video games don’t have awareness.


        The question is, could developments in AI reach such a stage that it would be possible to give them consciousness?

        Since no one seems sure what consciousness is, it may be impossible. I’d say, right now no one knows.

        But the point about the Sim is, if the avatars have consciousness they would be convinced their world was real and would be unable to detect that it was a Sim.

        As for all your stuff about Quantum weirdness, I don’t see how it proves anything. If this is a Sim, Quantum weirdness and all physical laws would be local to the Sim. The ‘World’ containing the ‘computer’ on which the Sim was hosted could be unimaginably different. We couldn’t even begin to imagine it.

        I don’t believe it though, for reasons of the heart. I can’t bear to think of myself as a Tamagotchi.

1 108 109 110