The 9/11 Post 8100


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 *

8,100 thoughts on “The 9/11 Post

1 109 110 111 112 113 116
  • Clark

    I have tried to determine the authenticity of the following image of the Twin Towers, but without success. Whatever, it makes you think…

    http://imgur.com/hJdqzcp

    It seems to be publicity material for a film called World Trade Center staring Oliver Stone. Its earliest appearance on the Web seems to be from 2006:

    https://www.cinemaview.sk/preview/world-trade-center/

    https://www.tineye.com/search/2769f60a46a287f67639e11180292b96c3d17cba/

    Releases in English-speaking countries seem to have used a different image, in which the Twin Towers look a lot more solid.

    This Pinterest page says the photo is copyright of Leslie Robertson Associates / CTBUH (Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat):

    https://www.pinterest.com/pin/221169031673004201/

    Here’s a similar view:

    https:[email protected]/2674952033/in/photostream/

    • Clark

      One thing that’s weird; WTC1 appears to have the antenna on top, but apparently, according to “New York: A Documentary Film – The Center of the World (Construction Footage)”, Port Authority / PBS, the antenna wasn’t added until 1978. However, if you look closely the antenna seems to have guy cables, so maybe it was something temporary. I think I have seen another photo of WTC1 with an antenna that wasn’t in the centre of the roof.

      • Clark

        The first image is claimed to have been taken in 1970 while the Towers were still being completed (indeed, a crane is visible atop WTC2), the second in 1978. Looking closely at the second, there seem to be two antennae, presumably the early temporary one to the right, and the permanent one in the centre. 1978 would be right for the handover from a temporary antenna to its permanent replacement. Also, the core looks more solid in the later photo, presumably due to final fitting out with plasterboard etc.

        On balance, I think both images are genuine.

        • Steve Corlew

          I can assure you the 1978 photo is genuine because I took it. If you look around the other photos in the same folder of the Flickr link you will see dozens of other photos around NYC and at the Macy’s parade in November 1978.

          • Clark

            Steve, thank you. It’s a shame you don’t have access to a slide scanner. A friend of mine uses one; it produces excellent results.

            I’ve been arguing for structural failure; I’m surrounded by demolition theorists here.

            How did you find this thread?

  • Clark

    A set of questions relating to 9/11 has occurred to me. I don’t expect anyone reading has immediate answers, but it could serve as a focus for research…

    Many so-called “conspiracy theories” consider 9/11 to have been meticulously planned in advance by the US or Israeli governments. But to what extent was the programme of using torture and forced confessions planned in advance? More specifically, was there a plan to use “intelligence” from forced confessions to influence and justify US and UK government policy, and if so, whose plan was it?

    I have read somewhere that the techniques of “enhanced interrogation” are of the specific types known to be most effective in producing predetermined responses; I don’t remember where, but it could have been in someone else’s comment; please repost. Two links which occurred to me:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2007/mar/19/truthandtorture

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/16/-sp-guantanamo-diary-false-confession-slahi

    • lysias

      The TV show “24 Hours” was scheduled to premier in September 2001. After 9/11 happened, that had to be postponed for a couple of months. The show must have been in production for months before the scheduled premier, and the planning must have begun earlier than that.

      • Clark

        Thanks Lysias. I think that was billed as just “24”, here in the UK. Just to make sure you mean the same programme; it was an action series about Jack Bauer of the Counter Terrorist Unit, using torture and other abuse, for instance to locate a nuclear weapon in a US city.

        Insidious. Gripping, glossy and well made, it glorified torture and contempt for law. I’d never fully realised the degree to which entertainment media justifies and glorifies militaristic and institutional violence until I read this:

        http://www.forceswatch.net/resources/spectacle-reality-resistance-confronting-culture-militarism

        Lysias, I know I’m I’m critical at times, but I abhor the sort of abuse Habbabkuk directs at you, and at others including myself. I know I get overly worked up, but at times I find it very frustrating to stand against so many who promote Truther mythology, which to my mind serves to distract from and obscure the important issues, and helps to divide and discredit those of us calling for justice and peace. Torture, illegal wars and exploitation of religious extremists to project neocon policy are the great evils. No matter how true or false the mainstream narrative may be, it justifies none of those.

        We have to do better than constructing fantastic stories and blaming the CIA for everything including our own failures. Sixteen years on, that approach has achieved very little; the militarism and abuse continue unabated, as the opposition we are divided, and our narrative is dependent upon “conspiracy theories” which are tenuous at best and often provably false.

        Craig provides the best example I’ve encountered by avoiding such speculation and centring his arguments on very specific, provable facts, levering them into the mainstream media by the popularity of this blog. We’ve seen that work time and again, eg. Anders Breivik’s posts at Pamela Geller’s, Atlantic Bridge, Fox, Werritty and Gould, “Cameron and whose army?” We should all be working to bring this blog’s comments section up to Craig’s high standard, providing newcomers with dependable facts and intelligent debate comparable to Craig’s own.

        • lysias

          I think you’re right about the title, “24”. My point is that the show demonstrates that the torture was being planned months before 9/11.

          • Clark

            I agree, though we must also remember that the Extraordinary Rendition programme was already well established. The torture programme was greatly expanded in 2001 rather than initiated.

            I regard the media as powers in their own right. Politicians are influenced by media (both “news” and “entertainment”) just as voters are. There are of course many covert placemen within the media – from multiple governments, many presumably double or triple agents etc, and the known interpenetration and collusion between secret services and organised crime… It’s obviously a complex dynamic, and it is unclear where the roots of such power really lie.

            I worry that the expansion of the torture programme may have been merely a reaction to a large extent, rather than a plot. We each individually have a tendency to externalise evil rather than face our selfishness and the subtle and unconscious ways we manipulate others. The “entertainment” media play on this continually in their polarisation of characters into ordinary-people-become-heroes versus inhuman-enemies-with-villainous-masterminds; popular conflict “entertainment” projects our darker sides onto some “evil-other” so we can relish the fantasy of its utter and permanent destruction – a sort of absolution fantasy. So-called “conspiracy theories” may serve a similar psychological function – “the evil lies wholly in them, not in us”. Experimental psychology has shown that aggression is a common response to threat, and 9/11 certainly made many people feel threatened. The “entertainment” media had been contributing poison for decades (with the public were eager to consume it) by repeatedly reinforcing our absolution fantasies. It was but a small step to act it out on actual foreigners.

    • Clark

      Paul, that will take me a long time to reply properly. I wish KoWN had answered because it’s more a matter of literary style than anything technical. I’ll just jot some impressions for now.

      “You have qualified for this project because of your ability to look at human society with cold objectivity, and yet analyze and discuss your observations and conclusions with others of similar intellectual capacity without the loss of discretion or humility. Such virtues are exercised in your own best interest. Do not deviate from them”.

      The Elite referred to would never disclose their methods and objectives to someone who was being instructed to play a technical role; doing so would breach “need to know”, placing the conspirators at risk.

      It seems unlikely that people become adopted by “the Elite” because they seem to be ruthless enough. Rather, they only gain and maintain their position among the elite by being ruthless enough. That’s just uman nature – the most powerful aren’t all nice and chummy together, cooperating with each other to control the whole of the rest of humanity. Rather, each has resources – money, physical assets, and people under their control – which they manipulate like game-pieces, the other members of the elite being the other players. Any player who loses sufficient resources to others is simply no longer a member of the elite, ie. has become a loser.
      – – – – – – –
      The piece is pretty obviously written by a disgruntled electronic engineer. Major parts of it are engineers’ humour, like parts of Thomas Pynchon’s Gravity’s Rainbow (good book; recommended). It has some engineers’ puns, such as “paper inductance” – there really is a component called a “paper capacitor”. Inductors are the compliment of capacitors, but it’s impossible to make an inductor from paper because an inductor has to conduct electricity.

      It’s true that in the design of electronic oscillators and frequency-dependent filters, capacitance plays the same role as potential energy in a physical oscillator such as a pendulum, just as inductance corresponds to kinetic energy, and electrical resistance to friction or viscosity. But such mathematical models generalise very widely, to include guitar strings, sound waves, waves on the surface of water, radio waves and light, orbits and planetary motion etc. As a class, these behaviours are referred to as “simple harmonic oscillation”. No doubt the same maths crops up in economic modelling.

      But these are the simplest set of behaviours from such systems, and as such are highly idealised. Every engineer who has attempted to implement such systems knows that beyond the drawing board, even in a laboratory setting where everything is as controlled as possible, real systems in the real world always deviate from theory, rapidly fouling up all your carefully worked-out predictions. The challenge is to make your system predictable enough to conform to what you worked out theoretically (that’s essentially the difference between engineering and physics), and that’s with standard electronic components which are themselves manufactured to be as close as possible to their theoretical representations, and with your circuit almost perfectly isolated from real-world fluctuations. The very thought that the theory would hold in the incredibly messy environment of real-world of economics is another engineers’ joke; it doesn’t even hold 100% in a shop-bought radio.

      Take a look at the “Transconductance amplifier” diagram, about 40% of the way down, in the section “Industry Equivalent Circuits”. The circuit includes two inverting amplifiers, the triangles each with a little circle at its left corner. These symbols represent idealised devices; to even approach the idealised behaviour under controlled conditions, the real-world equivalent has to be built from a much larger number of components (albeit integrated into a single “chip”) – something like the following

      http://www.play-hookey.com/analog/op_amps/inside_741.html

      That’s the degree of complexity required to produce behaviour that approximates the theoretical behaviour of the idealised components in the diagram. An entire “industry” cannot be optimised to produce idealised economic behaviour because doing so would be incompatible with its industrial functions. This is more engineers’ humour – presenting an over-simplified model – an engineer looks at that, laughs and thinks “yeah, if only life could be as simple as that
      – – – – – – –
      It's not focussed enough to be an actual technical manual. Rather, it seems to be intended for the public. The lack of focus is more pronounced at the end, with its brief, vague sections: Logistics, The Artificial Womb, The Political Structure of a Nation – Dependency, Action/Offence, Responsibility, Summary, System Analysis, The Draft (As military service), Enforcement (Father, Mother, Junior, Sister, Cattle) – none of these include any methods to make them applicable within the main "systems analysis" section.

      Sorry that's all a bit vague; literary analysis isn't really my field. I know real technical documents when I see them, and that isn't one. I've seen that sort of systems analysis of electronic circuits and can read it if I have to, but that article doesn't contain any secrets about how to manipulate a society.

      • Paul Barbara

        @ Clark May 3, 2017 at 02:30
        ‘…It seems unlikely that people become adopted by “the Elite” because they seem to be ruthless enough. Rather, they only gain and maintain their position among the elite by being ruthless enough. That’s just uman nature – the most powerful aren’t all nice and chummy together, cooperating with each other to control the whole of the rest of humanity….’

        IF you had watched a previous comment I submitted, you would find out one way the ‘Elite’ do recruit members (you should also have gathered it by watching Aaron Russo’s ‘Historic Interview’).
        In both cases, the ‘Elite’ took a chance, and screwed up
        In Russo’s case, it was ‘Why do you care about these people? Look after yourself and your family’. Well, Russo DID care about other people, spoke out, and paid the consequences.
        In the case of the other guy, a financial wheeler-dealer, they recruited him saying he would have to leave his conscience in the deep-freeze. He agreed, and did very well; but when they ‘invited’ him to a child sacrifice abroad, he refused, and rapidly broke away from them, at heavy cost, but he is (apparently) still alive.
        THIS is the reality you seem loathe to even contemplate; the Savile Syndrome; the ‘Pizzagate’/Clintons Syndrome; the G. H. W. Bush Syndrome.
        A very important interview re Luciferians and child sacrifice:
        ‘Ronald Bernard High Finance Shocking Revelations (Dutch with Subtitles)’ (40 mins):
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEpcY5JU120&app=desktop

        It seems to me you have absolutely no grounds whatsoever for categorically stating ‘Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars’ is a spoof, other than you’re ‘gut feeling’.
        Your talk about ‘paper capacitors’ is not from the link, but from, apparently, a book you have read, and recommend.
        I am not going to get bogged down in mathematics, physics or electrical engineering, all of which I have only a smattering of knowledge in. I leave that stuff to the experts, though experts who don’t have a ‘dog in the ring’.

        ‘…The piece is pretty obviously written by a disgruntled electronic engineer….’
        Well, that may be ‘pretty obvious’ to you, but hardly evidence that my link was a spoof. After all, you frequently dismiss REAL architects and engineers by what you ‘reckon’ is obvious.
        You clearly know a lot more than me about the scientific and engineering technologies than I do; but that is hardly relevant; I know virtually nought, and don’t wish to learn.

        There are a lot of technologies out there which you don’t have a clue about; you mentioned ‘artificial wombs’ – well, just a couple of days ago I chanced upon an article where a premature animal had been kept alive in a fluid-filled ‘artificial womb’. And it was in a news article, nothing ‘conspiratorial’ about it.

        Incidentally, paper and virtually any other substance CAN conduct electricity, if treated with certain chemicals (like, if my memory serves me, sal ammoniac). Good way of assassinating someone in their (or someone else’s) bathroom.
        Remind me not to pull the string light cord if I ever visit!

        • Clark

          Oh artificial wombs are possible, but that’s not the context in that article. Paper can be made to conduct electricity, but “paper inductance” is still an engineers’ pun – you can induce behaviour with paper money – paper capacitor, paper inductor, gedit?

          Integral 1/(cabin)d(cabin) = log(cabin)+c = houseboat. Mathematicians’ pun from Pynchon’s Gravity’s Rainbow. Read it. You will struggle (everyone does), but you won’t regret it.

          There was a technician named Slater
          Who slept with the LOX generator
          His balls and his prick
          Froze solid real quick
          And his asshole a little bit later

          LOX is liquid oxygen; it’s very cold.

          http://zork.net/fortunes/rocket-limericks

          • Paul Barbara

            @ Clark May 4, 2017 at 00:41
            Again you’re using the ‘straw man’ tactic – using a book you have read to illustrate your point, rather than the article I linked to.
            Basically, you don’t have any evidence the link was a spoof.
            And why would a ‘disgruntled electrical engineer’ crack on about money control, when we know (or many of us do) that it is through control of countries’ currency by the Banksters that enables them to call the shots (literally, as in ‘Wars’) – and make a ‘killing’ while they’re at it.

            The ‘Paper Inductance’ thing is clearly explained here:
            ‘APPARENT CAPITAL AS “PAPER” INDUCTOR
            http://www.syti.net/GB/SilentWeaponsGB.html

            ‘In this structure, credit, presented as a pure element called “currency,” has the appearance of capital, but is in effect negative capital. Hence, it has the appearance of service, but is in fact, indebtedness or debt. It is therefore an economic indu ctance instead of an economic capacitance, and if balanced in no other way, will be balanced by the negation of population (war, genocide). The total goods and services represent real capital called the gross national product, and currency may be printed up to this level and still represent economic capacitance; but currency printed beyond this level is subtractive, represents the introduction of economic inductance, and constitutes notes of indebtedness.

            War is therefore the balancing of the system by killing the true creditors (the public which we have taught to exchange true value for inflated currency) and falling back on whatever is left of the resources of nature and regeneration of those resources.

            Mr. Rothschild had discovered that currency gave him the power to rearrange the economic structure to his own advantage, to shift economic inductance to those economic positions which would encourage the greatest economic instability and oscillation.

            The final key to economic control had to wait until there was sufficient data and high-speed computing equipment to keep close watch on the economic oscillations created by price shocking and excess paper energy credits – paper inductance/inflation ….’

            The ‘Bradbury Pound’, introduced immediately before WW1, served just fine, but when the war was over, the government mysteriously switched back to the Bankster Cartel’s ‘debt money’.
            This is how a campaigner for the Bradbury reintroduction was fobbed off:
            https://www.britishconstitutiongroup.com/article/treasury-select-committee-response-bradbury-pound
            ‘..I appreciate you taking the time to raise your ideas for reintroducing the Bradbury Pound. However the committee has a full programme at present. We are currently conducting inquiries into Quantitative Easing and Macroprudential Tools, among other matters. As such, the Treasury Committee has no plans to look into this subject in the forseeable future….’

            ‘In other words, the Treasury Select Committee wishes to spend all its time looking into the policies which are making the problems worse, rather than looking into positive policies which would change the face of the economy, namely the reinstatement of the Bradbury Pound, and in order to prevent the Bradbury being used to bail out the banks, Glass Steagall.’

          • Clark

            “Again you’re using the ‘straw man’ tactic – using a book you have read to illustrate your point”

            I’m just recommending a novel. I think you’d be really surprised if you read it. Vineland, too; also by Pynchon.

            “you don’t have any evidence the link was a spoof”

            Critical thinking works the other way round, because anyone can propose anything, and collecting evidence takes time and effort. For instance, say I propose that Jupiter’s moon Io is made of green cheese, which takes me about two and a half seconds. You don’t have conclusive evidence that it isn’t unless you spend fifteen years working with a team of hundreds to send a probe there and bring back a sample, therefore Io is made of green cheese. FAIL. That’s why you need evidence FOR a proposition, rather than just proposing anything that comes into your head and challenging everyone else to come up with evidence against it. It’s about who has to do the hard work.

            “And why would a ‘disgruntled electrical engineer’ crack on about money control”

            Well, maybe because after a diligent childhood and teens in school education, and then four years doing a B.Sc to learn electronic engineering, followed by a decade cleaning other workers’ soldering irons and recoiling their cables on fuck all pay to “gain experience”, he finds himself tweaking guidance systems for an arms manufacturer, watching his salary disappear into his college debt and mortgaged up to the hilt just to have somewhere to lay his head, while the bigwigs over him turn up in flashy limousines doing very well thank you very much by landing multi-billion quid arms deals just by ‘phoning prostitutes and sending them to visit prominent Saudis, all protected from the Serious Fraud Office by a prime minister who says it’s a matter of national security:

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Yamamah_arms_deal

            Electronic engineers aren’t stupid, despite you thinking you’ve discovered the Secret Knowledge, and they do have a sense of humour.

  • RobG

    Once again, this thread always gives me a headache, and the main purpose of the thread is to shut down all conversation about 9/11 (hello Clark and Craig).

    Forget this thread. Bring up the subject of 9/11 in all posts that Craig makes where it is pertinent (which is most of them). Yes, many of your posts will get banned, whilst Craig & Co will tell you at the same time that you live in a ‘free speech democracy’ (which is total bollocks).

    These people are total vermin and scum.

    I’m sure we’ll get “I’m the owner of this blog, and I ban you, and there are plenty of other places on the internet where you can post”. This statement in itself is not true, since the independent media is increasingly under attack and censorship, and the vermin are now actually passing laws to restrict independent media on the internet.

    When it comes to this little GCHG controlled corner of cybespace (and again, these vermin are all on tax payer’s money), don’t be corralled. Spread knowledge of the 9/11 crime far and wide.

    • Paul Barbara

      @ RobG May 3, 2017 at 23:03
      Don’t get me wrong; 9/11 is my main preoccupation. But it IS Craig’s blog; we should accept that with good grace. I do not for one moment believe Craig is ‘opposition’; he has his blinkers, as I’m sure most of us have re something or other.
      He has allowed the issue of 9/11 to be discussed along with other so-called ‘Conspiracy Theories’, on this thread.
      You see for yourself that a lot of useless ’tilting’ and stuff goes on here; if you were Craig, would you really want every topic you brought up on YOUR blog weighted down with tons of baloney like this thread is?
      Loosen up!

      • Clark

        He’d take any commenter he could get, but unlike Craig he’s never shown any backbone, so no one bothers commenting at his place.

    • Clark

      Aggressive little shit, aren’t you Rob? I reckon the only reason you haven’t got a job torturing people into false confessions is that you wouldn’t be able to keep quiet about it.

      I’ll debate whatever you have to offer, but you just ran off at your place. You want to test your brains? Or would you rather keep what little you’ve got?

    • glenn_uk

      WTF Rob? _Every_ thread should be about 9/11 I suppose, with you steering it?

      Well rejoice! There is a solution to this apparent shortfall in the Internet’s provision.

      Start your own blog, instead of hijacking that of someone else who has no particular interest in 9/11, and is more concerned with geopolitics and human rights, and has put a lot of skin in the game. Which is why he has such a following, btw.

      You have some considerable cheek.

  • Clark

    AIA members reject resolution to reinvestigate the collapse of Building 7:

    http://us1.campaign-archive1.com/?e=%5BUNIQID%5D&u=d03bf3ffcac549c7dc7888ef5&id=1906748158

    I find it very disappointing that the vote has decreased from 11% to 4% since the last attempt. I can see how the Twin Towers collapsed the way they did, but Building 7’s behaviour seems highly unlikely (though not quite impossible). Data is being withheld. From AIA proposed Resolution 17-5:

    ‘NIST has refused to release key portions of its modeling data to engineers studying the collapse of WTC 7, claiming that to do so “might jeopardize public safety”’

    That is entirely contradictory to the very spirit of scientific enquiry, the essence of which is full public disclosure and reproducibility. Buildings just don’t do what Building 7 did, and as someone with a lifelong interest in physics I want to know what happened to it.

    – – – – – –
    Bobm, I saw your comment in the comment feed, but it’s not here so it must have been deleted. If you check the moderation policy, the seventh point “Contribute”:

    https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/06/moderation-rules-commenters/

    “Contributions which are primarily just a link to somewhere else will be deleted. You can post links, but give us the benefit of your thoughts upon them.”

    That will be why your comment was deleted. Thanks for posting the link; I hope you don’t mind my reposting it above.

    • Paul Barbara

      @ Clark May 3, 2017 at 23:35
      I believe an Alaskan or Canadian guy is working on a complete model, so that should rub NIST’s (and any one who ‘believes’ in them) noses in it. Let’s hope he survives long enough to do it. I believe it’s due out in August.
      As I’ve mentioned before, he should be passing on his calculations as he goes on to a good number of trusted sources, just in case he has an ‘accident’, or ‘contracts’ a very rapid lethal disease, of perhaps even ‘commits suicide’.

      • Clark

        I doubt it’s NIST’s fault. That they’re withholding evidence in this case strongly suggests that they’re under duress. I respect NCSTAR1 (despite having disagreements with parts of it) because they exposed the facts that the Twin Towers’ safety and egress systems were inadequate, and that the rated durations for certain fire protection elements were considerably shorter than the full evacuation times.

        Paul, this isn’t what you think. The Twin Towers’ collapses are completely consistent with their construction, the damage and fire they suffered, and classical physical dynamics. The wide concrete floor assemblies went into a cascade failure – which they were bound to do if the top sections started falling.

        But check out exactly who first seeded the wildest 9/11 theories. Trump first suggested explosives for the Twin Towers. Rumsfeld first suggested a missile for the Pentagon, followed by Stubblebine – and what was his former job, eh?

        • Paul Barbara

          @ Clark
          May 4, 2017 at 00:24

          ‘…The Twin Towers’ collapses are completely consistent with their construction, the damage and fire they suffered, and classical physical dynamics. The wide concrete floor assemblies went into a cascade failure – which they were bound to do if the top sections started falling….’
          Again, it’s no good going over and over this – that is YOUR opinion, and it is not shared by the A&E certified people, and it was certainly NOT expected by the firemen and ‘First Responders’.
          The ‘fuel’ fires were burning very slowly and cooly, as shown by the black smoke, a sign of an oxygen starved fire.
          The great majority of any ‘jet fuel’ would have burnt in a fireball almost immediately.

          ‘…But check out exactly who first seeded the wildest 9/11 theories. Trump first suggested explosives for the Twin Towers. Rumsfeld first suggested a missile for the Pentagon, followed by Stubblebine – and what was his former job, eh?’
          No, actually it was news reporters and first responders who talked of explosions and explosives.

          Stubblebine did not suggest a missile – he said he did not know what had hit the Pentagon, but only that it was NOT a Boeing. A military guy said there was NO smell of J4 – Kerosene jet fuel – at the Pentagon, but their WAS a smell of cordite.
          April Gallop also said there was no smell of jet fuel, and NO SIGN a plane had hit the Pentagon, and she escaped through the hole with her infant son. Her feet were not burnt; in fact, a book lay open on a chair, unscorched, nera the ‘alleged’ plane entry. Her case against Rumsfeld, Cheney and others was dismissed by a ‘judge’ who was a relative of Bush, and who refused to recuse himself.

          • Clark

            News reporters and first responders spoke of explosions and possible secondary devices, but it was Trump who immediately stated on interview that the aircraft impacts could never have been responsible for the Twin Towers’ collapses, and that explosives were necessary for that.

            Stubblebine may not have mentioned specifically a missile, but he certainly encouraged no-plane theories.

            Any minor arguing point; ignore the preponderance of evidence… It’s irrationality like this that gets the whole field dismissed as nonsense.

            Calm down; I know “irrationality” is taken to mean the same as “insanity”, but that’s not what the word means. Look at it – irrational. It means disregarding the ratio, getting things out of proportion.

          • Clark

            News reporters and first responders spoke of explosions and possible secondary devices, but it was Trump who immediately stated on interview that the aircraft impacts could never have been responsible for the Twin Towers’ collapses, and that explosives were necessary for that.

            Stubblebine may not have mentioned specifically a missile, but he certainly encouraged no-plane theories.

            Any minor arguing point; ignore the preponderance of evidence… It’s irrationality like this that gets the whole field dismissed as nonsense.

            Calm down; I know “irrationality” is taken to mean the same as “insanity”, but that’s not what the word means. Look at it – irrational. It means disregarding the ratio, getting things out of proportion.

          • Paul Barbara

            @ Clark May 4, 2017 at 13:09
            Stubblebine’s last job was as chiief of the department that assessed satelite and other pictures of Soviet bases and weaponry – thus he was excellently qualified to assess from the pictures of the Pentagon that NO BOEING HIT IT. Comprende? Did you not know that already?

            People were jumping out of windows through the intense heat of nanothermate, NOT from burning fuel or office fires.

          • Paul Barbara

            @ Clark May 4, 2017 at 16:27
            WHEN was Trump interviewed?
            The news reporters and First Responders were interviwed on the day, many even before the Towers collapsed.
            Trump doesn’t know his a** from his elbow, and speaks as his belly guides him.

          • Paul Barbara

            @ Clark May 4, 2017 at 16:27
            Stubblebine specifically stated he did not know what hit the Pentagon, but that it wasn’t a Boeing. You can take that as encouraging anything you like – what he said, and his qualifications for saying it – is what is important.

          • Clark

            Trump gave a radio interview actually on 9/11. He said Larry Silverstein was a very good friend of his, and called 9/11 “worse than Pearl Harbor”:

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcKlPhFIE7w

            You’re rather economical with the truth about Stubblebine’s career:

            He is credited with redesigning the U.S. Army intelligence architecture during his time as commanding general of the U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command (INSCOM) from 1981 to 1984… had an interest in psychic warfare… By 1980, commanded the Electronic Research and Development Command (ERADCOM)… was a key leader in the U.S. military invasion of Grenada (1983)… worked as a vice-president for BDM Corporation (defense contractor)… a part-time consultant to two government contractors, ERIM and Space Applications Corporation….

            So the only reason you’re trusting him is because what he says supports your favourite theory, like John Goss with his favourite Russian spook.

  • Paul Barbara

    @

    ‘..The solution of today’s problems requires an approach which is ruthlessly candid, with no agonizing over religious, moral or cultural values….’

    This is very similar to what Ronald Bernard ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEpcY5JU120&app=desktop ) was told, and what he initially accepted; it is also very close to the ‘Cremation of Care’ ‘ceremony’ of Behemian Grove.

    ‘…You have qualified for this project because of your ability to look at human society with cold objectivity, and yet analyze and discuss your observations and conclusions with others of similar intellectual capacity without the loss of discretion or humility. Such virtues are exercised in your own best interest. Do not deviate from them….’

    So the guy is unlikely to be a disgruntled electrical engineer; ‘.. you have qualified..’ means there has been some kind of test or considerable observation before these people were classed as ‘qualifying’.
    And as the story runs, the document was not leaked by any of the ‘qualified ones’, but was accidentally left on an IBM copier, which was bought in 1986 at a sale for scrap parts.
    According to Bill Cooper in the foreward to his book ‘Behold a Pale Horse’, ‘…It (the document in question) has been authenticated by four different technical writers for Military Intelligence, one just recently retired who wants very much to have this manual distributed throughout the world, and one who is still employed as an Electronics Engineer by the Federal Government, and has access to the entire series of Training Manuals. One was stationed in Hawaii, and held the highest security clearance in the Naval Intelligence, and another who is now teaching at a university, and has been working with the Central Intelligence Agency for a number of years, and wants out before the axe falls on the conspirators….’ (quoted from http://www.whale.to/b/silentweapon.html ).
    So your ‘disgruntled electrical engineer’ appears to be one of the four Military Intelligence technical writers who have authenticated the document.

  • Paul Barbara

    ‘AE911Truth — Architects & Engineers Investigating the destruction of all three World Trade Center skyscrapers on September 11’:
    http://www.ae911truth.org/news/374-news-media-events-ae911truth-enters-science-march-with-wtc-evidence.html

    ‘…Rachel Colton organized a coalition of 9/11 Truth volunteers to attend the recent March for Science. “Why?” you may be asking. Because she believes that scientists can — and do — help uncover the truth behind 9/11 — especially the cause of World Trade Center Building 7’s collapse.

    “A building will not descend at free-fall acceleration unless the structure underneath has been removed” by demolition explosives, maintains Colton, who represented Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth at the Washington, D.C., march on April 22nd — Earth Day…’

    A&E – leading from the front. It’s the most active and successful 9/11 Truth site there is, though there are other good ones.
    When (and if) a breakthrough does come about, it will most likely come through their efforts.
    Another good initiative from an independent campaigner is trying to arrange for a part of a Boeing wing to be blasted by rocket sled into a facsimile of the Twin Towers steel structures at 500/550 MPH.
    If he does manage to arrange it, £50 says it won’t cut through the steel girders like a hot knife through butter (as we are led to believe was the case with the Twin Towers). No need to place any bets just yet; I’ll hear when and if the test is about to take place.

    • Clark

      “…arrange for a part of a Boeing wing to be blasted by rocket sled into a facsimile of the Twin Towers steel structures at 500/550 MPH”

      To begin with, using part of a wing is not a fair test. By the time the wing reached the perimeter, 13.5 metre of fuselage had already punched a central hole, two jet engines (including titanium central shafts etc.) had punched smaller holes either side, and the whole perimeter structure between had been warped and stressed by the interconnecting spandrel plates. The wing section only had to “join the dots”.

      I reckon a wing section at 500MPH would still sever a perimeter mock-up, but there’s still plenty of latitude to weight the test towards it failing to, like using relatively short sections of box-column, using box columns of more than 1/4 inch steel, using continuous box-column rather than sections bolted together end-to-end, not including all the wing components including fuel tanks and fuel (which adds to the mass) etc. What I’d put £50 quid on would be no-plane theorists further weighting the test in such ways.

      Much cheaper to use FEA simulation.

      • Paul Barbara

        @ Clark May 4, 2017 at 15:56
        The guy intends to use the strongest part of the wing, near the fuselage, and to fill the fuel tanks with fuel or other liquid.
        And just which ‘dots’ did the wings past the engines (up to the wingtips) ‘join up’? Because according to the TV/video footage, they too sailed through the steel columns like a ghost. Check the site I linked to, and there is a very good still of the ‘self-healing’ wall structure, AFTER part of the plane has ‘ghosted’ through it.

        • Clark

          “Check the site I linked to, and there is a very good still of the ‘self-healing’ wall structure”

          I checked the video of the impact which that image was captured from. It’s a single frame, and I strongly suspect that the effect is caused by video interlace.

          Video interlace means that each frame is constructed half-and-half from two instants, exploiting human persistence of vision to deliberately create an optical illusion of smooth motion. As an example, here’s the video that the still was taken from:

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rsn1NojxLis

          You can hear the aircraft approaching around 0:48; pause the video immediately it comes into shot, at around 0:52. Alternatively, here’s a video capture:

          http://www.killick1.plus.com/odds/interlace-example.png

          Note that the image of the aircraft is made of two, somewhat transparent images overlaid onto each other. This does NOT mean that the entire video is faked. You get exactly the same effect with vidcaps of a golfer’s club swinging, or a tennis ball in flight etc.

          Paul, PLEASE think about this rather than just opposing me. It took you seconds to link to and recommend that misleading page. How long do you think I put in? – Finding the original video, finding the specific frame, finding an example of interlace, extracting the still, uploading it to my server, and writing the explanation above – as well as time I’ve spent over the years, learning about video and TV formats.

          And this happens time and time again; you link to something misleading, and I put in the better part of an hour showing where it’s wrong. I do my own original work, because I know you dismiss any source that contradicts you as “paid disinformation”. And I carry on doing it with hardly anyone supporting me, and occasionally getting called “scum and vermin”. From time to time you dismiss ME as “paid disinformation” too. And I’m NOT getting paid to help teach you how to shoot straight. I do it because I want the cases we present to be solid, rather than full of holes and hence easily shot down.

          • Paul Barbara

            @ Clark May 6, 2017 at 13:47
            I wasn’t ignoring you, it’s just that I don’t have time to always go back several days to find if there has been a reply.
            The video you say my still was taken from looks like it may well be the one the still was taken from.
            At 0.53 if you stop the video quick enough (or watch it frame by frame) you will see that the whole front of the plane up to the right wing has ‘dissapeared’ into the building, but ‘Presto!’, no apparent damage, and NO FIREBALL. Still at 0.53, but later, you can see a ‘fireball’ emerging from the side, but STILL NO FIREBALL from ‘entry-point’, till a fraction of a second after the side fireball; and it is of lesser intensity.
            Your ‘explanation’ of the self-healing building wall does not convince me at all.
            Allso, at 0.53, you can see WTC2 already pouring out black smoke, evidence of an ‘oxygen starved’ fire, with no trace of fire except the start at left hand corner at bottom of black smoke.
            All very strange.
            I am ignorant of video imagery and pretty useless at computer stuff in general, but many people who do understand the issues very well also believe the video is faked.
            Back to ‘Ace’ Baker; the main attacks against him were plagiary, rather than technical issues. Whether or not he pinched someone else’s ideas originally mean little to me; the important issue is ‘was the video footage we all saw on TV faked, or not?’ I accept Ace’s view that they were faked.

          • Clark

            You’re treating lo-res vidcaps as if they were forensic or technical photographs. It’s nonsense.

            To make a fair check, you should inspect some videos of split-second events that you’re NOT suspicious about, and you should try to find “anomalies” in those. There will be plenty; domestic, and even broadcast video are very approximate media.

            The videos weren’t all TV footage. Loads of people took private videos, which were later used by the TV stations.

            And I suppose I meant to believe that all the eye-witnesses were spooks? And the aircraft debris scattered about the WTC site was thrown off nearby roofs by more spooks? A cast of thousands…

  • Paul Barbara

    ‘9/11 PLANES HOAX’: https://911planeshoax.com/tag/911-crash-test/

    ‘…The inner core steel columns were incredibly thick – each measuring 2.5 inches (6.35 cm), so the entire thickness of each column was 5 inches (12.7 cm). To imagine how thick this is, here is a good example to compare to: imagine the front armor of the best tank from the WWII period – the T-34 – whose steel was only 1.8 inches (4.5 cm) thick and was just single-walled. The T-34 tank and its armor are in the pictures below:
    Yet there were practically no armor-piercing artillery shells available at the time capable of penetrating such front armor. The Twin Towers’ steel frames consisted of double-walled steel columns that were almost three times as thick as the front armor of a T-34 tank.

    The media and the government would have the public believe that an aluminum plane can pierce into a building ringed with steel columns, and after cutting through those columns, continuing to cut through even thicker columns in the core of the building. Below are examples of what happens to a plane when it collides with a bird. Birds are light, which is how they are able to fly. Yet, look at the damage the birds do to an aircraft. If a bird can do that degree of damage to a plane what chance would a plane have against robust steel columns at the World Trade Center?…’

    ‘Daily Mail: Egyptair plane left with huge hole after striking bird’

    Yeh, one might say, but maybe the bird had been dining on depleted uranium?

    • Clark

      We don’t know what happened to the Twin Towers’ cores because they were hidden from view. But the perimeter box columns at the height of the impacts were made from 1/4 inch steel. That’s about 13mm of steel (two layers), versus about 13500mm of aluminium blade (non-tapered fuselage ahead of the wings) impacting in a fraction of a second. Aluminium is indeed softer than steel, but I think its 1000:1 dimensional advantage in this case ought to be considered.

      • Paul Barbara

        @ Clark May 4, 2017 at 13:49
        see what happened to the front of a plane when a BIRD hit it! Some incredible ‘blade’ that gets busted up by a bird.
        Anyhow, you seem to have acclimatised yourself to the fact the ally wing won’t go through the steel, and are ready to cry ‘foul’ because you reckon it must have been rigged.
        Don’t you think impartial observers and engineers will be welcomed to check all aspects of the test?

        • Clark

          Well at 06:50 a DC7 wing severs a 13 inch wooden pole:

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

          You can say “wood versus steel”, and I can say “13mm of steel in the perimeter box columns, versus 25 times that thickness of fibrous wood”. You can say “but the outer pole severed the wing” and I can say “but the Twin Towers were struck at about 2.8 times the velocity, 7 or 8 times the kinetic energy, by a modern, stronger wing designed for much higher airspeed and stresses”.

          But it’s all ridiculous anyway. Several Finite Element Analysis (FEA) computer simulations of the impacts have been performed, and FEA software is available to everyone these days. If it were impossible for airliners to penetrate the steel perimeters, it would be completely impossible to hide the fact.

          Yet again, you’ve posted nonsense that won’t convince anyone who can think about the matter. And yet again you’ll take my comment as argumentative, when in fact I’m trying to do you a favour and help you reach more people by learning to think critically. That’s the bit you don’t seem to get; politically, I’m more with you than against you. I’m trying to teach my comrades how to shoot straight.

      • Paul Barbara

        @ Clark May 4, 2017 at 13:49
        You seem to forget that the columns were BOX COLUMNS, so we are not talking about 1/2″ of steel, but whatever the width was – twice, PLUS the 1/2″. And then of course, we supposedly have the ally plane sliicing through the reinforced concrete floor, at an angle! Some ‘plane’. Who needs depleted uranium, when ally does such a remarkable job?
        It would need to cut through the mass of the floors WIDTH, , not it’s depth. And it’s width, or length (both the same, as it was a square building, was very considerable indeed. And the floors were obviously undamaged at that stage!
        Think, buddy, think!

    • Clark

      “…The inner core steel columns were incredibly thick – each measuring 2.5 inches (6.35 cm), so the entire thickness of each column was 5 inches (12.7 cm)”

      According to the following A&E9/11Truth video, that was the thickness in the lower section of the core. In the upper section where the impacts occurred, the thickness was less than 5.1cm:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3TmHYaXvEo

      Never let facts get in the way of a juicy “conspiracy theory”. LIES, Justice, Peace? Yeah, right. Silk purses from sows’ ears. Treasure from turds. That’s always how things work, init?

    • Clark

      It’s bound to be bollox. Please deconstruct it yourself; I can’t keep going to the moons of Jupiter every time you claim one of them to be made of green cheese.

      Fuck’s sake. And no one will say a word. Instead they turn up here to call Craig “scum and vermin”.

      • Clark

        So, work it out. 350 people. Who were they? Ordinary people who booked flights that day? So how come they cancelled their flights? What, the conspirators ‘phoned up and warned them? Yeah, right.

        Or they were in on the conspiracy. So what did they book the flights for in the first place? Just to create a huge give-away? Yeah, right.

        Fuck logic. Who cares about logic? If there’s a sensational claim, it HAS to be true.

        • lysias

          San Francisco mayor Willie Brown has publicly stated that he did not take a flight for which he was booked on 9/11 because he was warned. Later turned out Condi Rice was the source of the warning.

        • Paul Barbara

          @ Clark May 4, 2017 at 15:21
          You can answer those questions by reading the relevant link I provided.
          And the ‘planes’ are supposed to have cut through some core columns, according to the ‘official conspiracy theory/narrative’.

          Also, re the T42 WWII tank, the approximate speed of a German anti-tank gun shell was 1879 MPH (with a 20 lb. shell).
          Anti tank shells are made to punch through armoured steel, yet few penetrated the tank’s 1.8 ” steel.
          Doesn’t say much for German technology; perhaps they should have used hollow aluminium shells, travelling at 550 MPH.
          Or maybe they should have fired birds at the tanks! That would have made the Russkis laugh so much, they would have fallen over and accidentally set off their own load of ammunition, thus putting paid to the tank.
          Blimey, I’d probably have got the Iron Cross if I had been an advisor to the Wehrmacht anti-tank division.

  • Clark

    Paul, I stopped following your links weeks ago. You’re too fond of any fantasy that confirms your preconceived beliefs, and your preferred argument technique is rhetoric. No doubt a few of your links make valid points, but the signal is submerged under the noise.

    • glenn

      Got to agree. That’s why I absolutely refuse to do duelling Youtubes – it’s an utter waste of time.

      If someone wants you to seriously examine a link saying, “Hey – look at this! It says Barak Obama is really a woman, and Michelle Obama is really a man!”, you know their references are of extremely low quality. The fact that a reference simply says something is not proof of an argument worth the time to bother about.

      This is a point which “fake news” taps into to an extreme degree – it positions a reference as always worthy, or (alternatively) that none of them are. This is a great way to make people doubt real information (if you don’t like it, it’s fake news!), or believe absolutely everything has at least some truth to it. Such as, Merkel is Adolf Hitler’s daughter, for example.

    • Paul Barbara

      @ Clark May 5, 2017 at 00:46
      ‘..Paul, I stopped following your links weeks ago…’
      Unless, of course, you can find a quick ‘debunking’ on a crap site like Metabunk, clearly a paid disnfo site.
      Have no fear, I couldn’t give a toss if you check the links or not – you invariably go off on a tangent, or into your fantasy world of being sure of something for no other reason than that that’s your opinion, and of course Clark can’t be wrong.

      • Clark

        “I couldn’t give a toss if you check the links or not…”

        There are millions like me. You lose the attention of a large proportion of the public by constantly posting nonsense. The Boy Who Cried Wolf. Chicken Little.

        “…a crap site like Metabunk, clearly a paid disnfo site”

        It’s a public forum FFS! Tony Szamboti has debated there!

  • Clark

    The Terror is coming. The signs are all across England, Europe, the US, the Middle East, and beyond.

    Groups of fascists will be slaughtering any brown person they assume to be Muslim. Other fascists like RobG will be slaughtering intellectuals, along with anyone who refuses to endorse their fantasies. Brown fascists will be slaughtering “infidels”. Those who refuse to murder will be murdered. Every side will burn with their own self-righteousness as they attempt to inflict their Truth upon all others.

    Prejudice, lies and injustice will rampage again, as they have repeatedly throughout human history.

    I am ashamed to be human, the vilest species ever to have arisen.

  • Paul Barbara

    ‘Trump’s First 100 Days: The War Party Lives On’: https://blackagendareport.com/trump_100_days_war_party_wins

    ‘Donald Trump has been brought to heel, as Hillary Clinton might say. “Trump has learned in his first 100 days in office that war is the primary marker of Presidential legitimacy.” The War Party’s anti-Russia campaign has crushed any hopes of lessening international tensions. “Where Obama succeeded in neutralizing the left, Trump is succeeding in dropping all so-called populist pretenses in favor of the warm embraces of the ruling elite.”….’

    ‘…US imperialism’s domestic agenda has carried its own sort of brutality through the erection of the mass Black incarceration state and the national security state apparatus. The US is home of just five percent of the world’s population but incarcerates over a quarter of its prisoners. Every US citizen is under electronic surveillance by some intelligence agency, whether it is the NSA, CIA, or all of the above. The intensification of state repression and racism has become necessary in a period where the capitalist economy is in a permanent state of contraction. Technology has made the system of profit accumulation so productive that fewer workers are required for production, especially Black workers. With a US labor participation rate stuck at 63 percent and lower for the racially oppressed, state repression has become all the more important for the realization of the necessary social peace required for capitalist accumulation….’

    ‘…The US is home of just five percent of the world’s population but incarcerates over a quarter of its prisoners….’ – just how many people are aware of that? And most are in prison through drug-related charges.
    Yet the CIA is the biggest drug dealing cartel on earth. How obscene is that? The CIA’s ‘Black Campaigns’ rely on the ‘Black Funds’ generated by drug and arms transfers.
    That was one of the major reasons for the war on the Taliban and Afghanistan – the Taliban had almost stopped opium production. The other reason was the oil and gas pipelines the US wanted to run through Afghanistan from the Caspian.

    • Clark

      Yes, I agree with all of that. Lots of solid facts there…

      …which goes to show that there’s no need to make stuff up in order to criticise the US.

      If you check, I think some US judges have been caught accepting bribes from the private prison companies, to increase their incarceration rates.

      • Paul Barbara

        @ Clark May 6, 2017 at 02:23
        ‘…If you check, I think some US judges have been caught accepting bribes from the private prison companies, to increase their incarceration rates…’
        Yes, one was jailed (for sending innocent kids to private ‘correction facilities’ for a fee); but it was just the tip of the iceberg; the vast majority of crooked judges do very nicely, thank you very much!
        Like cops who kill; as in the UK, US cops almost invariably get off not only scot-free, they also almost invariably keep their jobs.

        But, despite ‘agreeing with al of that’, you don’t seem able to resist the temptation to throw in a dig (‘…which goes to show that there’s no need to make stuff up in order to criticise the US….’).
        Yet you always keep up the Charlie Brown refrain, ‘Why is everybody always picking on me?’

        • Clark

          The “dig” is important. If stuff is made up, people find out, feel mislead, and turn away. We can’t afford for that to happen. We have to present better accuracy than our opposition, because accuracy is our only advantage; our opposition have so much more money, and all the exposure it brings.

  • Clark

    John Goss, I see you’ve revisited the thread. Apparently, my reply was deleted along with your comment.

    So. Shell we finish our chat about conservation of momentum now?

  • Paul Barbara

    Catholic 9th Circle Satanic Ritual arrests, but ‘diddly-squat’ in the MSM!
    http://itccs.org/2017/05/06/an-update-on-the-aftermath-of-the-ninth-circle-disruptions-and-arrests-of-april-30/

    ‘….The nineteen cult members arrested by our teams and local police in Zwolle Holland, Dijon France and Lucerne Switzerland are presently in custody in police facilities in those cities. We do not know if the detained have been formally charged by local prosecutors yet. However, the police recovered considerable evidence of cult activity at the arrest sites, including Satanic regalia, blood-marked torture devices and children’s clothing, and in the case of the Zwolle site even the physical remains of dead and mutilated children held in cold room containers….’
    ‘….The eight children who were liberated and saved by our teams in these three towns have either been returned to their families of origin, if they were kidnapped from them, or held under protection in independent safe houses until they can be relocated with safe and caring families. Three of the children were immigrants from Romania or Tunisia, and five were native to France and Holland. None of them were older than six years old. They are all still in a state of shock and recovery after having been starved and beaten, and confined in small padlocked cages that were recovered in our raids……’

    The ITTCS is certainly a very brave and efficient group, and are not to be messed with.

    • Clark

      On what basis should readers believe this?

      I’ve spent yet another hour looking into the context and the website you linked to. Maybe it is true, or maybe Kevin Annett is mad. How am I to tell? How did you decide?

      • Paul Barbara

        @ Clark May 7, 2017 at 11:24
        I have met the guy and heard him speak a number of times in London. He is now barred, as he wished to serve warrents on the Royal Family for Canadian Native Children who disappeared after Liz and Phil’s party took them from a Canadian ‘Residential School’ and they were never heard of again.

        The following two articles may convince you that this Satanic Ritual Abuse and sacrifice DO occur:
        ‘Children for human sacrifice rescued; Mafia arrested; Assassination attempts on Whistleblower’:
        http://childabuserecovery.com/children-for-human-sacrifice-rescued-mafia-arrested-assassination-attempts-on-whistleblower/

        ‘Where child sacrifice is a business’: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-15255357

        It has long been believed, indeed known to some, that these sacrifices and abuse do result in gaining one’s worldly desires.

        I can well understand people being skeptical if they haven’t come across a lot of this stuff before; here is a video documentary – sus it out, and decide for yourself if Kevin Annett seems ‘crazy’, or not:
        ‘UNREPENTANT: KEVIN ANNETT AND CANADA’S (NATIVE PEOPLES) GENOCIDE: 1 of 1 FULL’:
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88k2imkGIFA

        • Clark

          OK, the BBC link concerns child sacrifice by witch-doctors on Uganda, and looks unrelated to what follows. Your YouTube link is Annett’s film, is it not? The claims at childabuserecovery.com are based almost entirely on an interview with Annett himself. It claims: “Targeted for human sacrifice, 30 Romanian children were rescued, […] European INTERPOL police”, but the RT article it links to claims only that “30 Romanian children have been saved from child traffickers”. In the face of it, this appears to be Annett exaggerating a mainstream story and using it to bolster his narrative. The article provides no additional evidence for any “Ninth Circle”.

          As things stand, I’d dismiss Annett, his “ITCCS” and his “ICLCJ”. Here’s what you can do to change that. The childabuserecovery.com article makes many claims of the ITCCS working with authorities to arrest, charge and try various parties. Find and post links to relevant court records from those trials, or legal reports, or reports from established local news organisation, or announcements from police; whatever you can find that shows that ITCCS really are providing evidence as Annett claims.

          Further, you made a claim about an image supposedly proving a video of an aircraft impact was fake. I looked into that and answered you, here:

          https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-111/#comment-675137

          I also presented a logical argument about aircraft impacts, their effects, and the use of FEA simulation, here:

          https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-111/#comment-674988

          However, you have not responded, and instead seem to have changed the subject. Have the facts I posted changed your opinion at all? Or do you intend to continue making those arguments, when there’s no one like me around to point out their weaknesses?

  • Paul Barbara

    ‘Saudi Press: U.S. Blew Up World Trade Center To Create ‘War On Terror’:
    http://www.breitbart.com/jerusalem/2016/05/22/saudi-press-u-s-blew-up-world-trade-center-to-create-war-on-terror/

    ‘TEL AVIV – The Saudi press is still furious over the U.S. Senate’s unanimous vote approving a bill that allows the families of 9/11 victims to sue Saudi Arabia. This time, the London-based Al-Hayat daily has claimed that the U.S. planned the attacks on the World Trade Center in order to create a global war on terror. ….’

    ‘…..September 11 is one of winning cards in the American archives, because all the wise people in the world who are experts on American policy and who analyze the images and the videos [of 9/11] agree unanimously that what happened in the [Twin] Towers was a purely American action, planned and carried out within the U.S. Proof of this is the sequence of continuous explosions that dramatically ripped through both buildings. … Expert structural engineers demolished them with explosives, while the planes crashing [into them] only gave the green light for the detonation – they were not the reason for the collapse. But the U.S. still spreads blame in all directions.

    The intention of the attacks, writes al-Shammari in his conspiracy article, was to create “an obscure enemy – terrorism – which became what American presidents blamed for all their mistakes” and that would provide justification for any “dirty operation” in other countries.

    The terror label was applied to Muslims even though it was Muslims who helped America defeat the Soviets and bring an end to the Cold War, he writes. The problem, asserts al-Shammari, is that the U.S. must always find a new impetus to have an adversary, for “the nature of the U.S. is that it cannot exist without an enemy.”……’

    Most of the world outside the Western MSM orbit can see what only a minority of our ‘Sheeple’ can – that 9/11 was an ‘Inside Job’.

  • Paul Barbara

    @ Clark

    I’ll repeat my post here, as I can’t expect you to go back so far; I should have done it in the first place:
    @ Paul Barbara May 7, 2017 at 21:27

    @ Clark May 4, 2017 at 13:49
    You seem to forget that the columns were BOX COLUMNS, so we are not talking about 1/2″ of steel, but whatever the width was – twice, PLUS the 1/2″. And then of course, we supposedly have the ally plane sliicing through the reinforced concrete floor, at an angle! Some ‘plane’. Who needs depleted uranium, when ally does such a remarkable job?
    It would need to cut through the mass of the floors WIDTH, , not it’s depth. And it’s width, or length (both the same, as it was a square building, was very considerable indeed. And the floors were obviously undamaged at that stage!
    Think, buddy, think!

    • Paul Barbara

      @ Clark

      Your still of two images of the ‘plane’ has nothing to do with the ‘self-healing’ walls and columns of the building; there is only ONE image there! (This is further to my other arguments above).

      • Clark

        No, interlace applies to EVERY frame; it’s the way the format works, so the “self healing wall” vidcap is made of two images as well. Interlace is just more noticeable with a relatively dark aircraft against a bright sky. COMPRENDE?

        • Paul Barbara

          @ Clark May 7, 2017 at 22:45
          No, I don’t ‘comprende’ at all.
          In the video I linked to (which I’m sure you will be able to isolate the frames) there are not two pictures, just one of a ‘healed’ wall.
          The ‘plane’ being darker than the wall, one would expect it to show, bu no, it doesn’t.

          • Clark

            EVERY frame is made of two pictures, about 1/30th of a second apart. That’s why you get weird illusions like self-healing walls.

          • Clark

            A video frame is made of a number of horizontal lines or scans. The PAL video format, for instance, has 625 lines, and they’re numbered from the top downwards (some are unused for technical reasons). Interlace makes two half-frames, the first made from all the odd-numbered lines, then the second made from all the even-numbered lines. So when you look at “a single frame”, it wasn’t taken all at once, but over the course of about 1/30th of a second.

            It’s just VIDEO. It isn’t REAL. It’s just something that looks realistic enough to fool human eyes and brains. You can’t treat a video frame as a genuine optical record of an instant of time.

          • Paul Barbara

            @ Clark May 7, 2017 at 23:17
            Thanks for the info about how the picture is made up, of odd and even numbers. Fine. But that STILL doesn’t explain why the ‘healing’ takes place, or at least to me.
            So no point discussing that point again: you say it makes sense, I say it doesn’t.

            Re Kevin Annett, I believe the lack of ‘evidence’ is because the cases are ongoing.
            I agree it is very difficult to believe, if you have not had extensive pre-knowledge of this kind of goings-on in high places (I have; Cathy O’Brien and Mark Phillips’ books and videos; John DeCamp’s books and videos; Noreen and Johnny Gosch videos (I haven’t read the book) and others.
            But a good method of sussing whether Kevin Annett is mad, bad, or genuine is to watch his harrowing documentary ‘Unrepentant’, linked to above ( http://nortonsafe.search.ask.com/search?chn=1000&ctype=videos&doi=2017-04-02&geo=GB&guid=B6D17B00-3BB5-11E6-9F38-38607703AA70&locale=en_GB&o=APN11908&p2=%5EET%5Ecd20gb%5E&page=1&prt=NSBU&q=unrepentant%20kevin%20Annett&ver=22.9.1.12&v=88k2imkGIFA ).
            At least you will learn something you didn’t know about how Indigenous Canadian children were ripped from their families and imprisoned in Church ‘Residential Homes’ by the government, and of their brutal, torturous, genocidal treatment. The survivors tell what happened, and it is obvious to anyone that watches the documentary that they are genuine. The documentary is just under two hours long.

          • Clark

            “But that STILL doesn’t explain why the ‘healing’ takes place”

            Paul, I have shown that a video frame does not record an instant of time. You seem very insistent that something in my eye might be a straw, while studiously ignoring three or four glaringly obvious rafters in your own – gaping holes in the perimeter, aircraft debris around the WTC, eye-witness and video testimony, FEA simulation.

            I could get video analysis software and separate the interlaced half-frames into a chronological sequence, but why should I do all the work? Could it be that you look down on me as merely one of the sheeple, whereas your greater enlightenment has earned you the privilege of telling others what is true?
            – – – – – – –
            I was already aware of organised child abuse conspiracies including the Kincora and Dutroux cases, and I don’t doubt the horrific Canadian abuse of Native American children, nor the reality of ritual sacrifice. But none of that is evidence for Annett’s claims of a “Ninth Circle”, nor that he’s doing anything beyond bandwagonning upon other people’s efforts. His claims go back years; there would be some public records by now. It is up to him and his supporters to present the documentation that establishes their reputation. I will not believe claims without substantiation.

    • Clark

      I’d already taken that into account; the box columns were made of 1/4 plate in the upper sections where the impacts were. I thought I’d made that clear on a number of occasions; maybe you ignored it. There was a 3.7 metre air space between floor assemblies, so material from the aircraft could pass between. Parts emerged from the far side.

      Look, you can’t just take a common-sense explanation based on extensive eye-witness testimony and video evidence, and replace it with some kind of magic. If you say there were no aircraft impacts, you have to come up with an explanation that accounts for the observed effects, including the holes, the fireballs, and all the aircraft debris scattered around the towers.

      And what about all the world’s universities and the physics and engineering communities? Saudi Arabia, Russia, China, South America and all their allies have universities, engineers, and military engineering corps, and they all have computers and FEA simulation software, but NONE of them have proclaimed the impossibility you claim. You’d need to account for that, too.

      Do you really not see why I think you’re pushing bullshit?

      • Paul Barbara

        @ Clark May 7, 2017 at 22:52
        I’ll do things my way.
        And I have better things to do than keep playing ‘ring-a-ring-a-roses’ with you.
        You think you’re smarter than 2,850+ REAL architects and engineers, and you think you’re smarter than ‘Ace’ Baker re video effects. I’m sure you could teach Einstein a thing or two about nuclear energy.

  • Paul Barbara

    Spats in ‘High Places’!
    ‘Federal Suit Hits Soros For $10 Billion For “Political Meddling…Motivated Solely By Malice”:
    http://www.activistpost.com/2017/05/federal-suit-hits-soros-10-billion-political-meddlingmotivated-solely-malice.html?

    ‘….Despite Soros’ often contentious dealings and reputation as a pompous busybody, last month’s filing in New York Federal Court has thus far largely escaped the spotlight.

    “Companies controlled by Israeli mining magnate Beny Steinmetz sued fellow billionaire George Soros, claiming he cost them at least $10 billion through a defamation campaign that stripped them of rights to an iron ore deposit in Guinea and other business opportunities around the world,” Bloomberg reported.

    Soros funded law firms, transparency groups, investigators and government officials in Guinea in a coordinated effort to ensure BSG Resources Ltd. lost the rights to the Simandou deposit in April 2014, BSGR said in a complaint filed [April 14] in Manhattan federal court.

    Interestingly, as opposed to innumerable civilians directly affected by Soros’ notoriously shady string-pulling, the lawsuit originates with the billionaire’s peers — who claim his monied influence bilked them of at least as many billions as claimed.

    “To Soros, Steinmetz’s success, as well as his active, passionate promotion of Israeli life, business and culture are anathema,” the lawsuit states. “Soros is also well known for his long-standing animus toward the state of Israel.”

    Steinmetz was arrested in December 2016 over allegations he and BSGR forked over millions in bribes to government officials for mining rights on Simandou — but those charges had been based on “fabricated reports by Soros-funded companies,” BSGR explains in its suit…..’

    Beautiful! A plague on both their houses!

  • Clark

    I have been accused (along with Craig) of “shutting down all debate on 9/11”. I dispute this, and argue that in fact it is the 9/11 “conspiracy theorists” who attempt to stifle debate. In particular, they seem very keen to dismiss any challenge to “controlled demolition” of the Twin Towers, and avoid any discussion of Saudi involvement in 9/11.

    I don’t understand why they do this; maybe they’ve fallen for the mainstream propaganda tactic of “dumbing down” distinctions between all Middle Eastern groups into an amorphous mass of “Muslims”, despite its similarity to the neocon / neozionist tactic of dismissing unwanted criticism as “anti-Semitic”.

    This prevailing Truther orthodoxy seems doubly odd, since the US relationship with Saudi Arabia shows striking similarity to the US relationship with Israel. Both are strategic allies of the US, both are major purchasers of US weaponry, and both receive extensive US military assistance.

  • Clark

    Come ON! I’m here to discuss 9/11 sensibly. The following article is highly relevant:

    https://consortiumnews.com/2015/03/30/deciphering-the-mideast-chaos/

    Over the past decade, the Israelis and the Saudis have built a powerful alliance, a relationship that has operated mostly behind the curtains. They combined their assets to create what amounted to a new superpower in the Middle East, one that could project its power mostly via the manipulation of U.S. policymakers and opinion leaders and thus deployment of the U.S. military.

    – Israel possesses extraordinary political and media influence inside the United States and Saudi Arabia wields its oil and financial resources to keep American officialdom in line. Together, the Israeli-Saudi bloc now controls virtually the entire Republican Party, which holds majorities in both chambers of Congress, and dominates most mainstream Democrats as well.

    • Paul Barbara

      @ Clark May 8, 2017 at 22:36
      So what’s new? The only thing that is new, is that SA can now semi-openly co-operate with Israel, as there are no sanctions on them doing so (or so they think).
      They can, like other so-called ‘Muslim States’, cooperate with Israel, and throw the Palestinians to the wolves.
      The Saudi ‘Kingdom’ was set up by the West to ensure control of the oil; the Saudi ‘Royal Family’ are less Muslim than me, and I’m a Christian.
      But please, Clarke, keep posting.
      You give some of us a belly-laugh, witch is very therapeutic.
      And, [please, keep getting your knickers in a twist!

    • Clark

      So what’s the deal with most Truthers trying to utterly deny hijackers and Saudi involvement in 9/11? There are all these ordinary public employees in the US saying “we’ve been trying to tell you”, and the Administration, and for the most part the “news” media studiously ignoring them. Meanwhile, the same Saudi-backed extremists continue their atrocities in Syria, while the Truthers just go on and on about “controlled demolition” and single frames of video, never mentioning the torture and forced confessions, almost as if they’re trying to help the US Administration’s misdirection of the voters.

      I’m glad you’re having a laugh at my expense; very Christian. Care to explain the rules of this obscure game?

      • Bobm

        Clark
        The 9/11 Commission was a whitewash run by an Israeli.
        The beauty of the Breitbart article recently posted by Paul is in suggesting that all the key issues might conceivably get an airing in court.
        SA and the USA are, in their individual ways, awful in the way they treat foreigners [and their own].
        But that is irrelevant in regard to 9/11, which was expressly used as a pretext for [inter alia] a redoubling of US interventionism and military expenditure.
        It is sickly amusing to note that Mr Trump, who ran on an anti-establishment and isolationist ticket, seems already to have betrayed his base.

        In these ridiculous times I suggest that SA’s threat to defend itself in court might just work!

      • Clark

        Well according to John Pilger, the testimony in the 9/11 Commission Report is very informative, but the conclusions completely ignore it and are a whitewash:

        https://web-beta.archive.org/web/20061129185617/www.newstatesman.com/200411150006

        “…the Kean report makes excruciatingly clear what really happened, then fails to draw the conclusions that stare it in the face. It is a supreme act of normalising the unthinkable. This is not surprising, as the conclusions are volcanic”.

        I haven’t read the report. Have you? Do you think maybe we should?

        It seems to me that the “official story” may be more valuable than any of the “conspiracy theories”. The “official story” makes it look like 9/11 could have been an extension of Gladio B:

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sibel_Edmonds#Operation_Gladio_B

        “[Sibel Edmonds] reported that an Al-Qaeda leader had been training some of the 9-11 hijackers at a base in Turkey. These and related allegations were seemingly confirmed by Sunday Times journalists in 2008 who spoke to Pentagon and MI6 sources.[37] However, according to Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed,[38] the journalists were prevented from publishing many of these allegations when the second half of their four-part series was dropped, possibly due to pressure from the U.S. State Department”

          • Clark

            I don’t know whether I’m agreeing with you or not, because you haven’t said much. Various points:

            I wish I had a translation of the whole article, and one that wasn’t translated by Israeli propaganda outfit MEMRI.

            The article being in Arabic suggests – and I repeat suggests – that the intended audience is Arabic.

            I think it very unlikely that the author, Saudi legal expert Katib al-Shammari, actually believes that the Twin Towers were pre-rigged for demolition, so there must be some other motivation for including that paragraph (assuming it wasn’t corrupted by MEMRI). The most significant section from a legal standpoint seems to be this:

            Lo and behold, today, we see these archives revealed before us: A New York court accuses the Iranian regime of responsibility for 9/11, and we [also] see a bill [in Congress] accusing Saudi Arabia of being behind it [sic]. This is after the previous Iraqi regime was accused of being behind it. Al-Qaeda and the Taliban were also blamed for it, and we do not know who [will be blamed] tomorrow!

            If anyone can find the original, I’d trust a Google translation over MEMRI’s.

  • Clark

    Stunning article:

    Why was a Sunday Times report on US government ties to al-Qaeda chief spiked? By Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed.

    https://ceasefiremagazine.co.uk/whistleblower-al-qaeda-chief-u-s-asset/

    Just a few highlights…

    Other intelligence experts agree that Edmonds had stumbled upon a criminal conspiracy at the heart of the American judicial system. In her memoirs, she recounts that FBI Special Agent Gilbert Graham, who also worked in the Washington field office on counter-intelligence operations, told her over a coffee how he “ran background checks on federal judges” in the “early nineties for the bureau… If we came up with shit – skeletons in their closets – the Justice Department kept it in their pantry to be used against them in the future or to get them to do what they want in certain cases – cases like yours.” A redacted version of Graham’s classified protected disclosure to the Justice Department regarding these allegations, released in 2007, refers to the FBI’s “abuse of authority” by conducting illegal wiretapping to obtain information on U.S. public officials.

    On Gladio, and Gladio B:

    – “You had to attack civilians, the people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game” explained Gladio operative Vincenzo Vinciguerra during his trial in 1984. “The reason was quite simple. They were supposed to force these people… to turn to the State to ask for greater security.”

    – While the reality of Gladio’s existence in Europe is a matter of historical record, Edmonds contended the same strategy was adopted by the Pentagon in the 1990s in a new theatre of operations, namely, Asia. “Instead of using neo-Nazis, they used mujahideen working under various bin Ladens, as well as al-Zawahiri”, she said.

    – “This is why”, Edmonds continued in her interview, “even though the FBI routinely monitored the communications of the diplomatic arms of all countries, only four countries were exempt from this protocol – the UK, Turkey, Azerbaijan, and Belgium – the seat of NATO. No other country – not even allies like Israel or Saudi Arabia, were exempt. This is because these four countries were integral to the Pentagon’s so-called Gladio B operations.”

    On trafficing in arms and drugs:

    – Terrorism finance expert Loretta Napoleoni estimates the total value of this criminal economy to be about $1.5 trillion annually, the bulk of which “flows into Western economies, where it gets recycled in the U.S. and in Europe” as a “vital element of the cash flow of these economies.”

    – It is no coincidence then that the opium trade, Edmonds told this author, has grown rapidly under the tutelage of NATO in Afghanistan: “I know for a fact that NATO planes routinely shipped heroin to Belgium, where they then made their way into Europe and to the UK. They also shipped heroin to distribution centres in Chicago and New Jersey.

    • Clark

      Off topic. It’s looking less and less like you have any genuine interest in 9/11. Should we talk about the president’s genitals now?

      • Paul Barbara

        @ Clark May 10, 2017 at 01:50
        You can if you like – enjoy.
        Chemtrails are part of the evil warmonger’s plans for a NWO ‘One World Gulag’, just like 9/11 was a part of their plan.

        • Clark

          Paul, every human book about God has been corrupted, edited, misinterpreted; subverted to the purposes of influence and domination. The only reliable route to understanding The Creator is through the study of creation, the study of nature, and in the era that we live such study is called science. This may sound arrogant, but there is no way to say it nicely. It seems to me that you have neglected that study, and consequently you are very vulnerable to being misled.

          The roots of warmongering lie in every human heart; mine, and yours too. It is a necessary attribute for any animal. We are all truly equal before God; we are all made from the same stuff. Your search for the source of evil has been too much directed outward, to the extent that you metaphorically see the face of the Devil quite literally in clouds, and find yourself fascinated by what may lie behind creases at the crotch of someone’s trousers. There are profound yet mundane lessons here; we are competitive because of the need to reproduce and evolve, and we can project our subconscious motivations onto anything sufficiently indeterminate.

          The roots of warmongering can be found by looking inwards and at your immediate environment. It can be seen right here on this thread, as people form alliances in the attempt to enforce a narrative by silencing others, drive them away, ridicule them or label them as the enemy – anything, rather than engage with their arguments.

          I can point out the tools that I have found helpful, but only you can pick them up and practice towards gaining proficiency. I’m sorry, because I expect this seems very harsh. But I am mortal and therefore have limited time, as do we all.

          • Paul Barbara

            @ Clark May 10, 2017 at 11:07
            Yeh, ‘divert the discourse’, old Masonic trick. And no, I am not accusing you of being a Freemason.
            In fact I would be extremely surprised if you were.

          • Clark

            What’s a diversion is all the bunk that becomes so popular. That’s the point I’m trying to make. It’s a huge waste of time and effort, and causes real, important matters to become discredited by association.

    • Paul Barbara

      @ Clark May 10, 2017 at 11:39
      I’ve been a Sibel Edmonds ‘fan’ for yonks. But she only speaks about what she KNOWS, from her work with the ‘Security Services’.
      She is brill; a real Patriot.
      I go further, connecting the dots (which , when you have as much info as me, takes the whole thing to a different level.
      Though proof is there, we are not going to get it all, so my angle of attack is required (or at leas5t, that is how I see it).
      I could be wrong – such a thing! But I’m giving it my best shot, and yes, I do want the Truth to come out.
      For F*cks sake, don’t try to give me a lecture, but please y’er se’n.

      • Clark

        Yeah but the majority of your ‘dots’ are just spots in your own eyes, so the picture you’ve constructed from them is misleading. Video interlace ‘means the aircraft weren’t real’, and a squarish cloud ‘means the US is attacking Canada with weather’. It’s called “tilting at windmills”. But worse, you help to mislead others. You’d have had me ostracised; how many people have you chased away? You discourage critical thinking, and encourage anti-intellectualism. Hubris.

        • Paul Barbara

          @ Clark May 11, 2017 at 01:26
          So, can you give us all an explanation for the ‘square’ clouds? When you stop waffling, that is.
          And as weather control was early recognized as a ‘weapon of war’, and a way to create facts on the ground which would be difficult to prove, hitting the ‘enemy’ (which includes, of course, ‘trade enemies’), why dismiss or find it unnecessary to even contemplate that just after a belligerent Canadian trade statement, the US would not use their ability to hit them in a way that, sure, they could be aware, but would be unable, or unwilling, to pursue?

          • Clark

            For the US to use weather against Canada, the US would have to claim responsibility, or Canada wouldn’t know who to appease or how. Each country it was used against would get to know, and soon they’d complain to the UN that the US was breaching the treaty – yes, there’s a treaty against weather warfare; I followed the Wikipedia link from the article you linked.

            Clouds come in all shapes and sizes; so what if you get a square one? If there were suddenly hundreds of square clouds when there hadn’t been before, that might mean something. But if it’s artificial, why did they show their hand by making it square?

            But I reckon what happened was there was a broad, even flow of air crossing that roughly straight piece of coastline at a right-angle; the air cooled over the ocean, so for a while there was a squarish patch of cloud, or something like that.

          • Clark

            Oh sorry, wrong photo. That one doesn’t have a straightish piece of coast. I dunno, but I still reckon it’s caused by evenly moving air, and essentially a coincidence.

            But look what it says in that article;

            “Legions of academicians continue to betray humanity and the web of life by their willful deception and denial of the ongoing climate engineering insanity.”

            Maybe geoengineeringwatch is funded by one of the Big Money climate-change denial outfits; maybe through a front organisation, to get people to distrust the findings of academic climate researchers. Loads of corporate concerns have done that sort of thing. A lot of anti-science is associated with the US-Right.

        • Herbie

          She can’t tell everything because she’s under rather serious injunction.

          But still it doesn’t stop her using that information to analyse what’s going on today.

          Read her books.

          “Classified Woman” non fiction

          and

          “Lone Gladio” fiction

          Probably available on pdf.

          You’ll learn quite a lot.

          Or follow her and her analysts on Newsbud.

          https://www.newsbud.com/

          • Paul Barbara

            @ Herbie May 11, 2017 at 17:00
            Or follow Sibel Edmonds on ‘Boiling Frogs Post’ or ‘The Corbett Report’.

  • KingofWelshNoir

    Is Sibel Edmonds all she purports to be? She’s one of those people who talk for ages without ever seeming to say anything. Or nothing particularly new. Am I misjudging her?

    I just watched this interview with her

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgo-E7KhVAc

    in which ‘Sibel Edmonds Explains Who’s At The Top Of The Pyramid’, well I watched half of it. And after half an hour I realised all she had said was the Military Industrial Complex made trillions during the Cold War but when the Berlin Wall came down they faced financial ruin so they came up with a new enemy, one that could never disappear like Russia, it was terrorism. And now the MiC is making trillions again. That’s all.

    Who didn’t know that? She also has the air, to me at least, of someone who is acting, and not very well. There was one very incongruous moment. She started off with an anecdote about the Iran – Iraq war. She was a kid who enjoyed war movies so her dad, a hospital surgeon, took her to the hospital to see a baby hit by a bomb with 80 degree burns. This anecdote felt made up to me, but maybe it happened.

    But later in the interview she is talking about the US military dropping millions of dollars of bombs on caves in Afghanistan and she is in a state of uncontrollable laughter. Huh? Earlier she had stressed how her dad told her whenever she thought of war she should remember that burned baby. Ten minutes later she is laughing. It really wasn’t in the least bit funny. I didn’t watch until the end, but judging from the comments underneath – spoiler alert – after an hour you still don’t learn who is at the top of the pyramid.

    Maybe I am misjudging her, but there is so much deliberately sewn disinformation out there.

      • Herbie

        Dunno how much you know about her, KOWN.

        Are you basing your opinion on that interview alone or are you familiar with the rest of her work?

        • KingofWelshNoir

          Well I’ve known about her for a long time, what is the Moniker ?’Most gagged person in history’ or something. I admit I haven’t looked too deeply but I’ve seen more than a few interviews of her, and articles on her blog, and I just keep coming away with the feeling that here is someone who talks and talks but never seems to say anything really substantive. It’s just a feeling. It’s like drinking a beer and not feeling very satisfied, and you turn the bottle round and find out it is alcohol free beer.

          Just thinking aloud.

          • Herbie

            Fair enough.

            I do know what you mean.

            I just wanted to establish that you were familiar with her work, and that it wasn’t based on that interview alone.

            I’ve been playing devil’s advocate a bit just to see what others who are familiar with her work think about it all.

            At the moment my thinking is that her analysis of current events is much more satisfying than any secrets she reveals.

            But then, she’s not allowed to reveal those things.

            It’s debatable to what extent her revelations of negative selection in key posts, is new, or her identification of Gladio B, or her revelations that both DEA and FBI are deeply infiltrated by CIA.

            She’s negative on Snowden, Greenwald etc but nothing definitive. Circumstantial.

            And she’s becoming a bit of a media entrepreneur herself at the moment.

            I did excuse her waffling. Just assumed she was looking for ways to explain things without breaching her injunction.

            Hard to know, but that’s the point I suppose.

    • Phil Ex-Frog

      kown
      “She’s one of those people who talk for ages without ever seeming to say anything. Or nothing particularly new”

      By definition whistleblowers have an establishment mindset. There is every reason to not expect anything new or insightful from them.

          • Herbie

            “There is every reason to not expect anything new or insightful from them.”

          • Herbie

            If you take the case of William Binney, for example, it’s completely wrong to say that he has not produced anything new or insightful.

          • Phil the ex-frog

            Sure, I was making a generalisation. Why would you expect someone who has a conformist establishment mindset to suddenly think independently just because they went public often over something we already knew anyway.

            I know sweet fanny adams about Binney as it happens. What new insights did you learn from him?

          • Herbie

            He wrote the spying program that NSA use, and he details how they munged his program to more nefarious ends.

            There’s quite a long interview with him here:

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3owk7vEEOvs

            You’re right about the establishment mindset to a certain extent. I mean, they’re not radicals.

            More like believers who’ve been disappointed.

          • Herbie

            So, if Binney is the original Snowden, who or what is Snowden.

            And remember that Binney got little coverage compared to the mass coverage of Snowden.

            Binney is much more techy, more ordinary, less mysterious and less actorly, shall we say.

          • Phil the ex-frog

            Binney is a defender of the principle of government spying. He just wants it to be done respecting the constitution. Same as Snowden then.

          • Herbie

            Well yes, in that regard, but that isn’t very interesting. That’s a given for anyone in this area.

            The difference is that Binney is the original source.

            So what’s Snowden.

          • Clark

            Didn’t Binney write the program ThinThread? If I remember rightly, it was an investigative program, modelled on detective work – targeted surveillance. The NSA opted for mass-surveillance instead, and Binney was very critical, saying that his program would have caught terrorists, whereas the false-positives of mass surveillance builds a haystack around the needle you’re looking for.

            Targeted surveillance is a means to catch wrongdoers. Mass surveillance hides them, and is also very effective as a tool of totalitarianism.

    • Clark

      KingofWelshNoir, May 11, 15:13: – “Is Sibel Edmonds all she purports to be? She’s one of those people who talk for ages without ever seeming to say anything”

      https://ceasefiremagazine.co.uk/whistleblower-al-qaeda-chief-u-s-asset/

      US Judges and public officials under FBI surveillance so they can be manipulated, confirmed by FBI Special Agent Gilbert Graham.

      A second Gladio false-flag programme; “Islamic” extremists attacking civilians so the public accept government excesses. Some of these operatives became 9/11 hijackers. NATO headquarters and diplomatic missions in four countries kept exempt from surveillance in order to conceal this.

      NATO aircraft used to ship heroin to Belgium, then on to UK, Chicago, and New Jersey.

      In other articles: Illegal arms supplies through the ATC, including nuclear proliferation.
      – – – –

      KoWN, these seem pretty significant to me. Maybe you feel like dismissing her because she hasn’t revealed “controlled demolition of the Twin Towers”? That one stupid meme seems to block out everything else. It’s nonsense and needs to be purged.

    • Paul Barbara

      @ KingofWelshNoir May 11, 2017 at 15:13
      I have not watched that particular interview; but I have complete confidence in her, as have many Truthers.
      She is the most gagged person in US history, and from what I have seen, she is a very courageous Patriot.
      ‘Cui bono’ from the information she has put out? I can’t see the PTB benefiting at all.
      I’ll check the interview, but not know.

    • Clark

      How to discredit an embarrassing whistle-blower. Do a really long interview. Edit out all the interesting bits. Edit the rest to make the subject seem incoherent. Publish on YouToob with the word “pyramid” in the title to attract all the Illuminati “conspiracy theorists”.

      I’m not saying this is what happened; I haven’t watched that video, but if I can think of it then so could the CIA. See who uploaded it and compare their other videos.

  • Clark

    The various whistleblowers’ revelations build into a coherent picture. Sibel Edmonds, as above; Sunday Times article blocked by the State Department. Mike Ruppert, a cop who was pulled from his drugs investigation because it was leading him to the CIA. Michael Springmann, saying the “Islamic” extremists including 9/11 hijackers were issued US visas under the orders of the CIA and State Department. Coleen Rowley and many other agents told to stop investigating, or investigations blocked, as if the “terrorists” were under some kind of protection from high office.

    But no, let’s dismiss all that because it doesn’t support “controlled demolition of the Twin Towers” and is therefore disinformation…

    Oh, You might want to watch this; Richard Clarke, Chief Counter-Terrorism Advisor to the White House 1998 to 2002, asking why the CIA didn’t report known terrorists to the FBI. Spoiler – no collapsing buildings, goddammit:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bl6w1YaZdf8

    Oh, who prompted Susan Lindauer to believe in demolition? “An anonymous high-clearance official at the STATE DEPARTMENT”… Grief, I get so frustrated sometimes.

      • Clark

        Building 7’s collapse looks like a controlled demolition. The Twin Towers’ don’t, unless you include vérinage (no explosives), and even then, the debris spread for blocks all around; not really very controlled. If you haven’t seen it, my outline of the Twin Towers’ collapses is here:

        https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-109/#comment-668896

        It’s unbalanced to say the Twin Towers’ collapses look like controlled demolitions unless you’ve considered what progressive collapses might look like following that sort of damage. But doing that breaks Truther taboo and gets one accused of supporting the conspiracy, and hence ignored.

        Demolition theory blocks thought and inquiry. It’s so seductive, and once accepted as a certainty causes people to skip over all the interesting stuff.

  • KingofWelshNoir

    Herbie, Phil Ex-Frog and Paul, thanks for responding politely and in a constructive spirit to my question.

    Clark please don’t twist my words. I did not mention the Twin Towers demolition thesis; and more importantly I did not ’dismiss’ her. I aired a suspicion and asked what others thought. Isn’t that the point of a forum like this? I twice asked if I were misjudging her. From the information you have all provided it looks like maybe I am and it is just her manner that irks me. The sight of her laughing as she talked of bombing the Afghans was strange though, even James Corbett seemed very uncomfortable.

        • Clark

          KoWN (and Node, if you’re reading); sorry, I know I get touchy. My mitigating plea is that it’s a hard, uphill struggle against the Twin Tower Demolition minority consensus that has risen to dominance over the years in certain corners of the Web. I tend to argue pre-emptively; I suppose it has become something of a conditioned response. I did at least pose it as a question for reflection rather than an accusation.

  • Paul Barbara

    @ Clark May 8, 2017 at 11:41
    I contacted Kevin Annett re the report, and he replied: ‘Being vetted. Transcripts will appear, they aren’t meant for public viewing until what will be used in court documents can be decided.’

    • Clark

      But that’s only relevant to the latest cases. Supposedly, he’s been doing this for decades, so where are the records for the previous cases?

  • Paul Barbara

    ‘Religious Leaders for 9/11 Truth’: http://rl911truth.org/

    ‘PETITION

    WHEREAS religious leaders seek to promote various universal values, including love, justice, and truth; and

    WHEREAS religious leaders throughout history have spoken out on moral issues; and

    WHEREAS the official account of 9/11 has been shown by scientists and professionals in relevant fields to be false beyond a reasonable doubt; and

    WHEREAS the official account of 9/11 has been used as a pretext for wars that have killed and maimed millions of innocent people and caused enormous ecological damage to our planet; and

    WHEREAS the official account of 9/11 has been used to increase military spending and thereby to withhold needed spending for health, education, welfare, infrastructure, and the environment; and

    WHEREAS the official account of 9/11 has been used to indict Islam as an inherently violent religion and to justify discrimination against Muslims and attacks on Muslim countries; and

    WHEREAS the official reports about 9/11 have been produced by individuals closely affiliated with, or even employed by, the Bush administration;

    THEREFORE we, the members of Religious Leaders for 9/11 Truth, ask President Obama to authorize a new, truly independent, investigation into the attacks of 9/11 immediately, because such an investigation is long overdue, being owed to the 9/11 families, the American people, and the peoples of the world—especially the peoples of Afghanistan and Iraq.

    The following are individual statements and endorsements which do not necessarily represent the whole religious affiliation without further consideration.
    151 Religious Leaders have already signed the petition…….’

    • Clark

      “WHEREAS the official account of 9/11 has been shown by scientists and professionals in relevant fields to be false beyond a reasonable doubt”

      Obviously referring to the building collapses. It’s a great shame that these religious leaders have been misled by these mostly false and entirely unsubstantiated claims, since it weakens their case and renders them vulnerable to being dismissed.

      But hey, who cares so long as they’re making a noise; any noise?

      • Paul Barbara

        @ Clark May 15, 2017 at 15:47
        ‘…Obviously referring to the building collapses…’
        Oh? What makes you so sure? The whole ‘Government Conspiracy Theory’, or narrative, is riddled with inconsistencies and obviously (to those who have a lick of sense, and aren’t either totally brainwashed or have a pro-PTB agenda) ‘..false beyond a reasonable doubt..’
        ‘…But hey, who cares so long as they’re making a noise; any noise?’
        Hmmm, I wonder who makes most ‘noise’ on this thread?

        • Clark

          “…to those who have a lick of sense, and aren’t either totally brainwashed or have a pro-PTB agenda”

          How would you know that? You believe dozens of things that are obviously false.

          Look, I agree that there’s a lot of deception and misinformation in the various mainstream narratives. It’s manipulation, but the ability to manipulate comes from our evolutionary legacy. It’s not just a human thing; it runs much deeper, even to the behaviour of some stickleback fish and the physical appearance of some insects.

          People deceive and manipulate without even being consciously aware of it; it’s ‘second nature’. In various religions, overcoming this is part of the internal struggle towards self-improvement, and is intimately connected with prayer. That’s one of the reasons I always write ‘”religious” extremists’ rather than the more common ‘jihadis’. In Islam, Jihad is the Holy Struggle, and that struggle has both external and internal aspects:

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

          Jihad (English pronunciation: /dʒɪˈhɑːd/; Arabic: جهاد‎‎ jihād [dʒɪˈhaːd]) is an Arabic word which literally means striving or struggling, especially with a praiseworthy aim. It can have many shades of meaning in an Islamic context, such as struggle against one’s evil inclinations, or efforts toward the moral betterment of society. In classical Islamic law, the term refers to armed struggle against unbelievers, while modernist Islamic scholars generally equate military jihad with defensive warfare. In Sufi and pious circles, spiritual and moral jihad has been traditionally emphasized under the name of greater jihad. The term has gained additional attention in recent decades through its use by terrorist groups.

          The word jihad appears frequently in the Quran with and without military connotations, often in the idiomatic expression “striving in the path of God (al-jihad fi sabil Allah)

          • Clark

            Paul, when you encounter an alternative narrative, do you invest much struggle in evaluating it?

            The responsibility rests upon all of us, and the first hurdle is the hardest:

            TRUTH, Justice, Peace.

      • Nikko

        It is heartening to learn that in matters of physics the religious leaders follow the teachings of Newton rather than Clark, who’d have us believe that i) Chandler is wrong because a heavy object can smash through a number of glass shelves, ii) that the toppling rotation of the top section of one of the towers was arrested because the bottom section moved out of the way like a skater falling on his bum after his feet slipped under him and iii) objects were hurled horizontally due to the towers toppling like a felled tree.

        • Clark

          Straw man arguments. Chandler was indeed wrong. The other two are your (mendacious?) misinterpretations of my arguments.

          I pay far more attention to Newton than you ever have, which is obvious from your abuse of his physics.

          • Clark

            It is really quite disgusting that you support deception of well-meaning religious leaders, whose ability in physics is unlikely to be adequate to assess the matter themselves.

          • Nikko

            Straw man arguments? Mendacious? Not at all but a summary of some of your arguments. In case you have forgotten here is a small reminder from a few weeks back.

            “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.”

          • Clark

            Yes, I wrote that, but YOU have misrepresented it as “the toppling rotation of the top section […] was arrested”, which I did not claim, nor that “the bottom section moved out of the way”. Further, you have not linked to the original discussion, thus depriving readers of the context.

            You are again conjuring ridiculous scenarios that could never have occurred and attributing them to me, presumably for the purpose of ridicule. I strongly suspect that you’re indulging in rhetoric by playing to the gallery, but we can expect nothing better from one who knows how to twiddle with a spreadsheet but has no idea how to correctly represent a physical system.

          • Nikko

            I am not able to understand Appendix 2 for the same reason I cannot understand your theories – it is bollocks. Just look at Fig 4 – he omits the 60 odd central columns and besides the structure was not one dimensional. There is no way it could have distorted as he suggests.

          • Clark

            Appendix II is fairly simple. Bazant suggests that the top section should move as in Fig. 3a. A Truther hypothesis is that it would move as in Fig. 3b. In Fig 3c, d, e, and f Bazant defines some terms. Fig 3d shows the reactive force F that would be required for the Truther hypothesis. He then uses a free body calculation to find the force at the base of the tipping section. He then finds the lateral force that the columns could provide, and calculates that they would have given way when the top section had tipped by just 2.8 degrees.

            It is true that he ignores half of the perimeter columns and the core columns, but some of his other simplifying assumptions are very conservative (such as using just 2.5 metre for the column height that could bend), and the required difference to achieve the Truther hypothesis is so great that it isn’t worth bothering with.

            FYI it’s a two dimensional model; the vertical dimension and one horizontal dimension.

          • Nikko

            Clark, the above post of yours typifies your dishonesty when it comes to physics. On the one hand you dismiss Wood or Chandler for simplistic models proving that something could not have happened while on the other you endorse Bazant simplistic model pretending to prove that something did happen.

            In the first case simplifying is quite acceptable as long as the error is on the side of caution (which it is); in Bazant’s case it is not acceptable because he completely ignores the strongest part of the building in his analysis.

          • Clark

            I dismiss Wood’s BBE because she blatantly and deliberately contradicts Newton’s law of action and reaction, and conservation of momentum. It simply isn’t physics.

            I dismiss Chandler’s Downward Acceleration because it predicts that a weight can’t accelerate through a set of glass shelves, demonstrating that it is too simplistic.

            I don’t care much for Bazant’s stuff, but he’s obviously right that for the top section to topple, the standing stump had to be capable of providing enough reaction force – and really, what are the chances of that? It was 300+ metre up on the most lightweight steel lattice of such height ever constructed, supporting enormous weight, severely stressed by aircraft impact with extensive breakage and weakened by massive fire right at the critical section called upon to supply the lateral force. You’re saying it was weak enough to permit tipping, but so strong it wouldn’t be pushed sideways? C’mon!

            Beyond that, I don’t really care, because the evidence for structural failure is overwhelming, and the evidence for anything else minuscule and highly tenuous at best.

            Nikko, you’re forever arguing against specific elements of the generally accepted consensus, but you never detail your alternative. Something must have happened to the Twin Towers. Whatever collapse theory it is that you never actually outline could be subjected to similar unreasonable and interminable nit-picking, in the unlikely event that it survived initial objections. It’s a cowardly strategy of being forever on the offensive, from the safe position of never exposing a target.

            We’ve been here before, with you arguing that explosives were somehow the most likely cause of the roughly constant downward acceleration at less than g, but proposing no details of how that could be. You even seemed to be arguing that the downward acceleration was precisely constant, any apparent deviation being errors of measurement, and I wondered if you were about to propose that the Towers were destroyed by enormous, invisible hydraulic presses.

            Your strategy is highly reminiscent of creationists’ arguments against evolution. You keep picking on carefully selected minor details, but when asked your alternative you just reply “oh, God conspirators with explosives can do anything”. Arguing in such a fashion is not scientific; it merely seems scientific to the inexperienced, which is why I regard it as essentially propagandistic.

          • Clark

            Actually, I don’t know why I’m bothering with you Nikko. Though we’ve been through the arguments you still haven’t dismissed Wood’s BBE or Chandler’s Downward Acceleration, demonstrating that you’re either incompetent or dishonest.

            I do think you should develop the honesty or self-knowledge to refrain from misleading others. 9/11 was an atrocity and a tragedy. There’s something highly distasteful about mythologising it.

          • Nikko

            I dismiss Wood’s BBE because she blatantly and deliberately contradicts Newton’s law of action and reaction, and conservation of momentum. It simply isn’t physics.
            I dismiss Chandler’s Downward Acceleration because it predicts that a weight can’t accelerate through a set of glass shelves, demonstrating that it is too simplistic.

            …except that you have never explained why you think Wood is wrong and your interpretation of Chandler is simply idiotic as he is referring to the supports and not any shelves or floor slabs.

            It is meaningless to say that “ the evidence for structural failure is overwhelming” as the argument is not that there was failure but what caused it.

            You are the one with the extraordinary claim so the proof is on you. Constantly repeating that gravity was the only force does not constitute proof.

          • Clark

            Chandler’s ‘Downward Acceleration’ does not include representation of any ‘supports’; it refers only to two ‘blocks’, though in his maths even those are reduced to two point masses and the forces upon them. It is very general. It is obviously false for a set of glass shelves, though such a structure is consistent with his model; a structure supporting a mass. Quite obviously, more detail is required, but it is absent, therefore ‘Downward Acceleration’ is too simplistic.

            Wood states: “…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”

            This assumption of asymmetric damage contradicts Newton’s law of action and reaction. The supposedly pulverised material is assumed to stop dead, contradicting conservation of momentum. I could go on, but seeing as she’s obviously not doing physics there’s no point.

            “It is meaningless to say that “ the evidence for structural failure is overwhelming” as the argument is not that there was failure but what caused it”

            The arguments you’ve been defending concern collapse progression, not collapse initiation; you need to be more specific.

            And no, it is not my responsibility to pander to your personal incredulity; if you personally can’t think how a structure might collapse, that is your problem not mine, but I would ask you this; have any other building collapses or engineering disasters ever struck you as suspicious? Or did you just get suspicious about these ones because you read it on assorted fringe websites?

          • Clark

            “Constantly repeating that gravity was the only force does not constitute proof”

            Why should anyone have to prove this? Just because some freaks came up with a ‘conspiracy theory’ and some blatantly wrong or false physics? Anyone can assert anything; does that mean that everyone else has to run around proving the most obvious and reasonable explanations?

          • Clark

            I wrote – “Chandler’s ‘Downward Acceleration’ does not include representation of any ‘supports’; it refers only to two ‘blocks’, though in his maths even those are reduced to two point masses and the forces upon them.”

            Sorry, sloppy writing. Chandler reduces his two ‘blocks’ to one point mass, something beneath which is not described in the formulae, and three one-dimensional forces acting upon these two things.

          • Nikko

            Clark, are you aware that your idiotic misrepresentation of physics devalues anything sensible you may say.

            What you say about Chandler is so off the scale that it is pointless to discuss it further.

            As regards Wood, it is absolutely wrong to say that asymmetric damage contradicts conservation of momentum, although in practice it is not going to happen. Wood just chose an extreme example to show what could not have happened.

            What if her example was less extreme and she considered that only a percentage of each floor slab turned to powder. What would the collapse time be if, say, only 5% of each floor slab turned to powder. Care to get your slide rule out or hack some software and come up with a number? Demonstrate that you can actually do physics instead of waffling.

          • Clark

            Nikko, no need for insults; this sort of physics is very easy.

            In Wood’s BBE, a floor slab accelerates under gravity and thus gains momentum, but after collision the total momentum is zero. I say that contradicts conservation of momentum. What do you say?

            Chandler’s formulae in his “Downward Acceleration” make no distinction between a set of glass shelves, the Twin Towers, or a solid pyramid of plutonium, and so should apply equally well to all. If you disagree, please point out the term(s) I’ve overlooked.

            There’s no need to assume that any of the floor concrete was pulverised before the collapses hit bottom as there was lots of plasterboard in the Twin Towers.

          • Clark

            Nikko, you’re so thoroughly trounced; why don’t you just give up?

            That’s why it’s TRUTH, Justice, Peace, see?

          • Nikko

            Nikko, no need for insults; this sort of physics is very easy.

            This sort of physics may be easy for some. Thus for you have demonstrated that you do not belong to this group.

            In Wood’s BBE, a floor slab accelerates under gravity and thus gains momentum, but after collision the total momentum is zero. I say that contradicts conservation of momentum. What do you say?

            I say that it does not contradict conservation of momentum because the pulverized particles have both mass and velocity.

            Chandler’s formulae in his “Downward Acceleration” make no distinction between a set of glass shelves, the Twin Towers, or a solid pyramid of plutonium, and so should apply equally well to all. If you disagree, please point out the term(s) I’ve overlooked.

            Chandler’s argument does not apply to both because in a set of glass shelves the lower shelves play no role in supporting the mass on the upper shelf.

            There’s no need to assume that any of the floor concrete was pulverised before the collapses hit bottom as there was lots of plasterboard in the Twin Towers.

            Whether the dust came from concrete or plasterboard is completely irrelevant as in either case some of the floor mass was pulverized and did not take part in the downward motion. So my question is still valid, i.e. what would be the collapse time if, say, 5% of each floor mass turned to powder?

            N.B. physics is about equations and numbers, not about waffle. Care to do some physics for once?

          • Nikko

            Nikko, you’re so thoroughly trounced; why don’t you just give up?
            That’s why it’s TRUTH, Justice, Peace, see?

            If anybody is reading this, let them come to their own conclusion. While I am not disagreeing with Truth, Justice and Peace, unfortunately on this your modus operandi is Waffle, Confuse and Obfuscate?

          • Clark

            “This sort of physics may be easy for some”

            Hundreds of millions…

            “…let them come to their own conclusion”

            And that, precisely, is your problem, isn’t it? I, along with any of those who have looked at your arguments, are forced to conclude that they are lies. Like this, for instance:

            “I say that it does not contradict conservation of momentum because the pulverized particles have both mass and velocity”

            Yet Wood insists that the lower floor slab does not gain velocity, therefore the velocity of the “pulverised material” CANNOT continue in its previous direction. I’ll give you a chance to salvage a semblance if intellectual integrity by repenting your attempt at deception of less technical readers; what sort of quantity is momentum?

          • Nikko

            Yet Wood insists that the lower floor slab does not gain velocity, therefore the velocity of the “pulverised material” CANNOT continue in its previous direction. I’ll give you a chance to salvage a semblance if intellectual integrity by repenting your attempt at deception of less technical readers; what sort of quantity is momentum?
            Clark, you are acting the idiot again.

            Of course the momentum of the falling slab per se was not conserved because an external force acted on it. But for the wider system including the stationary floor below and the whole supporting structure momentum was conserved! None of this makes Wood’s calculation incorrect.

            Talking about calculations, why is it Clark that as a self-proclaimed critical thinker you are always running away and hiding from doing calculations to demonstrate your theory that it was plaster board which pulverized and not the floor slabs. I guess you do not know how and will reply that calculations are not necessary because your gut feeling is sufficient proof and that you are satisfied at the null hypothesis – or some such bollocks.

          • Clark

            “Of course the momentum of the falling slab per se was not conserved because an external force acted on it”

            What external force are you referring to?

          • Nikko

            Not sneaking off anywhere but busy.

            The force which pulverised the falling slab was imparted by the stationary slab below as envisaged in Woods hypothetical example.

            I agree that it is not very realistic so lets examine a scenario where only 5% of the mass is pulverised.

          • Clark

            Not so fast, Nikko. You wrote:

            “I say that [Wood’s BBE] does not contradict conservation of momentum because the pulverized particles have both mass and velocity”

            Do you retract that?

            I really can’t make out what you’re up to – maybe you’re just playing an ego game; trying to score as many points as possible or something. I’m mystified.

          • Nikko

            I do not retract anything Clark. I guess you do not understand because you either pretend not to or else simple physics is beyond you. Waste off time talking to you.

          • Clark

            Nikko, you seem to be trying to wiggle out of this. “Not very realistic” is not strong enough.

            In a collision between two nearly identical slabs, do Newton’s laws and the consequent laws of momentum predict that one will pulverise, while the other suffers no damage but instead gently disconnects from its supports?

          • Nikko

            Clark, I am not wiggling out of anything and you are absolutely correct that Newton’s laws do not predict that when two identical objects collide only one will pulverise. Judy Wood makes the same point.

            The laws of physics also do not predict that a whole steel framed building will be destroyed at 66% of free fall speed by falling internal floors.

            So glad we have finally agreed.

          • Clark

            No I have not agreed with you or Wood. Do you claim that Wood’s BBE is consistent with conservation of momentum? Has Wood presented physics or fake physics?

        • Clark

          And do you claim that the laws of physics predict that collapse accelerating at less than g is impossible?

          That’s three questions, Nikko.

          • Nikko

            Wood is correct in her billiards example and perfectly demonstrates what did not happen, ie the buildings could not have collapsed as they did if pancaking of the floors was taking place with one of the floors pulverising. What is hard to understand anout that?

            As for your second question it is imprecise. Physics can only help if scenarios are precisely formulated.

            A precisely formulated scenario is the one I posed above of pancakimg floors with 5% pulverisation. That seems reasonable and realistic. Rather than argue about whether Wood is correct about what did not happen, why don’t you prove what could have happened and that a pancaking scanario can make it to the ground within the recorded time frame

          • Clark

            Actually, Wood’s BBE claims that the buildings could have collapsed if each falling floor had “pulverised” upon impact with the relevant stationary floor, but that such collapse would have taken a very long time.

            But it just isn’t physics; it violates conservation of momentum for a start. As such it tells us nothing about collapses of anything. It contradicts observable features of the collapses of the Twin Towers, and defies common sense as well.

            Nikko, I am not your puppet. I see no point in performing the calculations for the hypothetical and ill-defined scenario you keep badgering me about.

            You wrote: “It is heartening to learn that in matters of physics the religious leaders follow the teachings of Newton”. Please present the Newtonian physics you were referring to, or admit either your error or your dishonesty.

          • Nikko

            You are wrong about Wood. She does not say that the buildings could have collased if one floor pulverised, but if somehow that is what happened then she calculates the time and concludes that that could not have happened.

            You are also wrong in what you say about her physics. The law of conservation of momentum does not say anything about how momentum will be conserved – only that it is conserved. She is mot breaking any laws of physics in formulating her example in the way she does.

            It is hardly Woods fault that the law of conservation of energy tells us nothing about the way collapses occur and that her example
            contradicts the observable features of the collase. Don’t forgot that pancaking was not observed by anybody but was put forward by NIST or whoever as an explanation. She could have easily assumed that only a small percentage of the structure pulverised (in line with observation) and arrived at the same conclusion.

            No wonder you do not want to do the 5% pulverisation calculation because that also shows that the collapse time would have exceeded what waa observed even in the completely ideal case of zero resistances present. Your theary of a gravity collapae, just like Nists’, is complete bollocks.

            I will stop bagering you about the calculation if you stop ramming your completely implausible and unproven theory of a gravity collapse down peoples throat.

          • Clark

            “The law of conservation of momentum does not say anything about how momentum will be conserved”

            Yes it does; momentum is a vector quantity.

            “She is mot breaking any laws of physics in formulating her example in the way she does”

            Oh really? She wrote:

            “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”

            Sorry? Hasn’t she just claimed that it was the collision between the floors that ‘pulverised’ the falling floor? So the collision had already occurred, therefore the falling floor’s momentum had already been distributed between the two floors. But she’s claiming that the formerly stationary floor begins uniform acceleration at g from zero velocity, therefore the falling material must have ceased moving downwards. So at this instant the total vertical momentum is zero. This contradicts conservation of momentum.

            Also, if the floors have collided then the air between them has already been displaced, so there’s no air for the “pulverised material” to hang in!

            Wood’s ‘physics’ is pure unadulterated bunk; utter drivel. So why are you defending it? Surely not just to mislead the non-technical. “Lies, justice, peace”, Nikko?

            “It is hardly Woods fault that […] her example contradicts the observable features of the collase”

            Snort! Sorry, who’s fault is it then?

            “…pancaking […] was put forward by NIST or whoever”

            Pancaking was proposed by FEMA; NIST rejected it as the collapse initiation mechanism.

            “Your theary of a gravity collapae, just like Nists’, is complete bollocks”

            NIST didn’t advance any theory of collapse progression. They quite rightly figured that engineers would understand that the lower structure couldn’t arrest the fall of such large top sections.

            “I will stop bagering you about the calculation if you stop ramming your completely implausible and unproven theory of a gravity collapse down peoples throat”

            I’m not ramming anything. Anyone can watch the videos and see what happened. Aircraft knocked huge holes and started massive fires. The buildings visibly distorted until rapid buckling accompanied onset of collapse; the massive top sections fell, rapidly destroying everything in their path. It’s you demolition theorists that have been ramming nonsense down people’s throats. It is anti-intellectual conspirology, requiring the entire global academic community to be a bunch of charlatans. Not a single university anywhere in the world has supported Chandler or Wood, and that is NOT because you are more intelligent or honest than all those millions of people. Quite the opposite. It is sickening that your relentless propaganda campaign and concerted bullying has misled and diverted decent people like Susan Lindauer.

            But that is your mission, is it not? You are here to encourage as many activists as possible to discredit themselves, right?

          • Nikko

            You are quite right that momentum is a vector quantity but only in the unreal world of completely elastics collisions and no resistance will the law of conversation of momentum (with some geometry) be sufficient to predict what is going to happen.

            You have demonstrated many times here that your knowledge of material behaviour and physics is not of the real world. Are you telling us now that when a bag of flour or a glass bottle smashes against a wall, the law of conservation of momentum somehow miraculously does not apply?

            It is pointless discussing physics with you so I suggest that you take up your problem with Wood’s physics directly with her. Better still, if you know something us lesser mortals don’t, write to the Nobel committee and if you manage to convince them then great things will await you.

            Your constant accusations and questioning of peoples’ motives are wearing a bit thin. You sound like a religious zealot. Where is the critical thinking you claim to do? Or are you confusing whacky with critical?

            So far Clark, you have failed to provide a single proof for your gravity only collapse “theory” and ran away when asked for a calculation proof. Remember that physics without maths is not physics, so you are no physicist.

            You can have the last word, I am not wasting more time on this.

          • John Goss

            “You can have the last word, I am not wasting more time on this.”

            It took you a long time Nikko. Leave him to it.

            As a parting shot imagine that they put floors to the outer frames of Blackpool Tower or the Eiffel Tower, from the central core which contain the lifts (at least in Blackpool Tower and I assume the Eiffel Tower). If the floors gave way because they were too flimsy, would the steel structures go with them? Of course not. You can see the sky through these towers. More importantly the central core would remain as it has since it was built. The floors would fall through one another if it was possible. But Newton, many years before any of us was born demonstrated with his third law why this could not happen. And your analogies using flour and glass bottles thrown at a wall are quite correct.

            There is only one way any of the towers that fell on 11 September 2001 could have done so and that is if the structure at the bottom was compromised. No real engineer would argue with that. There has never been an example before or after of a structural steel building behaving in this manner. Neither could it have happened on that fateful day.

            I will take a screendump of this comment to make sure it does not go the way of other comments. I am getting together quite a collection.

          • John Goss

            In answer to myself above I can envisage thoughts of how flimsy the twin towers were. They were not. These are flimsy, innovative and beautiful steel structures. We just have pylons. But they don’t tend to fall down as far as I know. Do they engineer Kempe?

          • Nikko

            John, the pylons are beautiful and designed to be strong, just as the Towers were beautiful and strong with their simple aesthetics – square tubes braced internally to strong cores every 3.5 meters. If somehow all the bracings failed (a big and unrealistic if), then I can envisage the outer tubes becoming wobbly and unstable and perhaps bending until arrested by the central cores but destroying themselves vertically downwards together with the cores is an impossibility.

          • John Goss

            You and I can see it Nikko. There can be beauty in pylon and crane construction as well as strength.

            Even if your big if was reality, like you say, the towers would not, could not, have collapsed the way they did, And at such speed. But you can waste many hours, as I have done, trying to educate one who simply does not wish to move on from the establishment lies. 🙂

            The weather is good and there are better things to do than sit indoors speaking truth to the irredeemable. I am trying to work out the engineering of getting a golf ball to fly straight every time. Some things seem to be beyond even the scope of engineers. 🙂 Have a good day.

          • Clark

            Nikko, you agree that in collisions, momentum is conserved, right? OK, Wood’s BBE describes a floor decoupled from its vertical supports accelerating under gravity until it falls upon a stationary floor which is still supported. Do you agree so far?

          • Clark

            John Goss: “More importantly the central core would remain as it has since it was built. The floors would fall through one another if it was possible”

            Try watching the damn videos. THE CORES DID REMAIN, which also RULES OUT your later point:

            “There is only one way any of the towers that fell on 11 September 2001 could have done so and that is if the structure at the bottom was compromised.”

            You wrote:

            “But Newton, many years before any of us was born demonstrated with his third law why this could not happen”

            Either state the relationship AS IT PERTAINS TO THE TWIN TOWERS or stop FALSELY invoking the authority of Newton.

            You people have done, and are doing, so much damage.

      • Clark

        This looks like it could be a very dangerous flashpoint.

        Paul, remember that warmongers are still warmongers, even if they change side.

        This has to do with the Turkish government’s relationship with Israel and the Palestinians. Background presumably includes the re-registering of the Mavi Marmara immediately before the Gaza Freedom Flotilla, and the murderous boarding by Israel.

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

        • Paul Barbara

          @ Clark May 16, 2017 at 10:18
          I certainly hope Erdogan takes Turkey out of NATO. It would be a huge loss to NATO, so they will move heaven and earth to keep them in.
          But Erdogan now has positive proof NATO/Gulen/Gladio II were responsible for the coup attempt against him; and he must be aware that all the previous coups were also NATO/Gladio.
          Erdogan is going to the States to meet Trump; I hope there is a colossal row between them, but slime-ball Trump may pull something out of the hat, whilst planning to get him assassinated at a later date.
          Turkey has been under the NATO/Gladio jackboot for decades, with their MIT intelligence service run by the CIA, and many high military officers in their pocket.
          I had hoped Erdogan would have pulled out of NATO already, but he didn’t.

    • Clark

      Paul, thanks for that interesting and informative video from Newsbud.

      I note that Edmonds’ and Spiro’s interpretation is based on research by Bellingcat, which is Eliot Higgins outfit. Most of his reports regarding Ukraine and Syria have seemed favourable to NATO narratives. Any thoughts?

      I wouldn’t leap to blame NBC of complicity in the attempted coup since there is also the possibility that NBC were fed false reports – I’m not absolving NBC, just considering other possibilities. Do you know what became of Edmonds’ Twitter campaign?

    • Clark

      Most unfortunately, judging by his nisterrors.com site, attorney Mick Harrison seems to have been seduced by Twin Tower demolition theories, which will tend to discredit him and distract from the important and factual issues revealed by serious whistleblowers. Nisterrors.com’s only contributor is Peter Ketcham who is not a whistleblower, and the site even links to Chandler’s “Downward Acceleration”!

      Twin Tower demolition theory must be among the most influential disinformation ever.

      Little is likely to come of WTC7 campaigns, at least not immediately. Even if the NIST report on WTC7 is shown to be fraudulent (which I doubt is likely and might be impossible), it will simply be claimed that an emergency military demolition was performed so that search and rescue operations could be resumed, whether that was the case or not. The most that could come of it is that other witnesses come forward, or that further clues be found in the resulting paper-trail.

      • Paul Barbara

        @ Clark May 17, 2017 at 12:11
        ‘….Even if the NIST report on WTC7 is shown to be fraudulent (which I doubt is likely and might be impossible),….’
        How on earth can you say that, when the NIST (‘rigged’) computer model is patently nothing at all like we see on videos of the ACTUAL co;;apse?

        ‘…it will simply be claimed that an emergency military demolition was performed so that search and rescue operations could be resumed, whether that was the case or not……’
        But that would show they have been LYING all this time…..how are they going to get out of that one?

        • Clark

          “How on earth can you say that…?”

          Oh, for a whole host of reasons.

          Coming up with a viable simulation is a heinously complex task, and no reasonable engineer would expect perfection or even anything particularly close. It’d be like calling Monday’s weather forecast for Wednesday “fraudulent” even though it was roughly right, but it actually rained ten miles from where it was predicted to or something.

          And because you’d need to prove they lied about the initial conditions, but most of the wreckage no longer exists or is unavailable in any practical sense. Even with the building plans, you can’t be sure that every piece of metal actually installed was exactly like the plans (or even that it was installed at all), and you can’t account for all the stresses and loading that the building was subjected to in its working life, or precisely how much the building contents weighed or how they were distributed, or how the ground had moved and deformed since the thing was built. And these are just what I can think of off the top of my head, but must amount to literally millions of unknown and unknowable variables. Oh here’s another; whenever you weld, one side solidifies before the other, trapping energy in the joint as the metal cools and it contracts like two springs stretched against each other; you can never account for all that energy nor work out which way it was directed. Heinous.

          And because a load of the work and the initial data was concealed under commercial non-disclosure agreements. Getting all that revealed would probably take years of court cases, and all the while the trail is going colder and colder.

          “But that would show they have been LYING all this time…..how are they going to get out of that one?”

          With an excuse, like always. They could say it was a secret elite unit of marines, and they were going to reveal it after the stock market reopened but then they had the anthrax attacks and by then Alex Jones with his megaphone outside the firehouse had been causing emotional distress to the firefighters who lost their comrades, and any talk of demolition would have fuelled conspiracy theories, so out of respect to the families of the victims blah blah… FFS, they devastated Iraq right out in the open and Condoleezza Rice’s signature on the torture programme is now a matter of public record, but I haven’t heard that anyone’s been actually punished or anything, have you? And the papers will say “our noble leaders did what they had to under difficult circumstances” and blah blah blah…

1 109 110 111 112 113 116