The 9/11 Post 9154


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 *

9,154 thoughts on “The 9/11 Post

1 110 111 112 113 114 121
  • Paul Barbara

    ‘Chelsea Manning is Free (Tomorrow)!’: (actually, today):
    https://couragetoresist.org/chelsea-manning-freedom/

    ‘Chelsea Manning, the Army intelligence analyst jailed for her 2010 disclosure of classified information, is free tomorrow. Manning will leave Fort Leavenworth after having been imprisoned for 7 years. She was supposed to serve 35, the longest sentence ever handed down to a whistleblower in the United States but, after an impassioned activist campaign calling for her release, President Obama commuted her sentence before leaving office.

    “This fantastic news goes a long way to making amends for the brutal treatment Chelsea was illegally subjected to while awaiting trial. It’s tragic that Chelsea had to spend 7 years imprisoned for releasing documents that should never have been classified in the first place, and were clearly in the public interest,” declared Chelsea Manning Support Network co-founder Jeff Paterson. “All of us who worked on Chelsea’s behalf are overjoyed. It feels unreal.”…..’

  • Tom Turner

    In September 2017, look out for the results of Prof. J Leroy Hulsey’s two year research study on WTC 7. The work has been conducted by the 40-year-plus veteran of structural engineering at Alaska Fairbanks University, with the help of his PHD students. Initial findings, presented to a panel of eminent lawyers in New York last September, categorically ruled out fire as the cause of collapse.

    • Emmanuel Goldstein

      The Most Feared Person In The World: Dr. Judy Wood

      https://steemit.com/technology/@mes/the-most-feared-person-in-the-world-dr-judy-wood

      When people think of “fear” they often times think of intimidation, strength, power, influence, death, war, abuse, and many other similar meanings. But the main thing people forget to consider is just who is afraid…

      What if I told you that the few that rule over us, the many, are in fact deeply afraid? But what if I told you that what makes them truly afraid is not a populist politician, not an independent media outlet, and not even nuclear war? The last part is arguably something they want…

      The person most feared by the people that most fear is just an unassuming Engineering Professor that saw something on September 11th 2001 that the entire world could not.

      Her name is Dr. Judy Wood.

  • Paul Barbara

    ‘Saturday, December 31, 2016
    96% of British Muslims reject official story of 9/11’:
    http://m911t.blogspot.co.uk/2016/12/96-of-british-muslims-reject-official.html

    ‘Friday, September 11, 2009
    Only 3% of Pakistanis say al-Qaeda did 9/11
    “On average less than one in four (Muslims worldwide) believes al Qaeda was responsible for September 11th attacks. Pakistanis are the most skeptical–only 3 percent think al Qaeda did it.”
    -WorldPublicOpinion.org survey, published 4/24/2007
    http://m911t.blogspot.co.uk/2009/09/only-3-of-pakistanis-say-al-qaeda-did.html

    They’re smarter than the average Brit! But because of the political/MSM demonisation, they generally keep their views to themselves.
    The ‘firebrand’ Imams and others who spout hate, thunder and lightening are almost always ‘agents provocateur’ ‘Uncle Tom’s’, taking the Queen’s shilling to lead their fellow, REAL Muslims into traps set by the ‘Security Forces.
    Ditto Mr. Hook. Judas, eat your heart out!

    • Clark

      “The ‘firebrand’ Imams and others who spout hate, thunder and lightening are almost always ‘agents provocateur’ ‘Uncle Tom’s’, taking the Queen’s shilling to lead their fellow, REAL Muslims into traps set by the ‘Security Forces”

      Not so, sorry to say. Muslims are as prone to becoming fascists as any other humans – ie. a small proportion are highly susceptible, and nearly everyone is subconsciously influenced to some degree by vestige xenophobia.

      There’s a problem of ‘clerical fascism’ within Islam; read Suhayl Saadi from here onward:

      https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2017/05/making-election-terrorism/comment-page-3/#comment-681751

      Certainly the ideology is exploited and nurtured by, as you say, ‘Security Forces’, but not just the Western ones.

  • Paul Barbara

    ‘September 11: The New Pearl Harbor’: http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/september-11-new-pearl-harbor/

    ‘…Roosevelt knew a surprise Japanese attack would enrage the public and jumpstart the American war machine. In this way F.D.R. would get backdoor entry into what he really wanted – war with Hitler. According to their own documents, before 9/11, authorities knew that surprise attack like new Pearl Harbor would enrage the public and start a war against Afghanistan. In this way they would get the backdoor entry into what they really wanted – the war with Saddam Hussein.

    Before and during the World War II, the propaganda machine made a relentless effort to create a direct connection between Hitler and Japan. One poll, taken immediately after Pearl Harbor, showed that more than 60% of Americans believed that Germany was behind the attack. The Bush-Cheney propaganda machine made an even harder effort to create direct association between Iraq and Osama bin Laden. By the end of 2003 nearly 70% of Americans believed that Saddam was implicated in the “September 11” attacks….’

    It’s a three-part, 5-hour documentary, but well worth watching for skeptics who haven’t yet accepted it was a slam-dunk ‘Inside Job’.

    • John Goss

      Leave out the dust and you can see what is needed to destroy a building where the construction parts are not even attached, let alone welded and bolted together.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9HaT23b-xc

      You can watch similar constructions made from dominoes. There are dozens of videos of these. But you know what? None of them falls from the top down! You know why? It cannot happen. It cannot happen whatever the ‘garden shed’ engineers on this thread want you to believe. What you can see with every domino is Newton’s reaction of the hit domino on the action of the hitting domino.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lo6x4eulY9g&spfreload=10

      Remember that this young woman’s clever construction has nothing attaching the separate parts. Nevertheless I should be interested to see a model construction where it falls from the top down in near freefall. Do you know what? It cannot be modeled. You know why? It would defy physics.

        • John Goss

          Yes, indeed!
          And how many more times are you, Kempe, who claims to have a structural engineering background, going to post verinage demolitions of non steel-structured buildings being demolished by demolition ‘experts’ and try to relate it to 9/11? Are you saying that the twin towers were brought down by demolition experts?

          • Kempe

            Does it fuck.

            Goss made an categorical statement that top down collapse cannot happen, his exact words, it defies the laws of physics; so he claims. When faced with evidence to the contrary he now seems to be suggesting that non-steel structured buildings obey different laws of physics! Amazing! How many times have we gone over this same ground yet the Troofers still cling to the same old mantra. See my comments somewhere above about nailing jelly to a wall.

            Here’s another (partial) top down collapse that obeyed different laws of physics:-

            https://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ljp43zIqiX1qd72qf.jpg

          • Clark

            John Goss goes on and on about Newton and steel as if Newton’s laws defined different laws of physics for steel. They do not. He will not post an inequality that would prove the collapses “defy physics” as he claims – it would not be possible, because there are none.

            Another inequality that John Goss will not address is how a floor assembly of the Twin Towers, rated to withstand up to ten times its own weight, is supposed to have arrested the fall of the top section of building, at least twenty times a floor assembly’s weight.

            John Goss continually pretends that the Twin Towers were immensely strong buildings, yet I have posted copious evidence on this thread that they were very lightweight, using proportionally only 60% as much steel compared with earlier structures such as the Empire State. Various senior fire-fighters have categorically stated that such lightweight buildings are far less resilient to fire than older designs, but no, Goss knows much better than such fire-wizened heroes who lost hundreds of comrades in the collapses of 9/11.

            John Goss claims to base his arguments on Judy Wood’s “Billiard Ball Example” (BBE), which includes correct formulae for momentum in the appendix, but simply ignores them in the body. John Goss is apparently incapable of recognising that Wood’s BBE contradicts conservation of momentum.

            John Goss posts video simulations such as “Over 5000 KEVA planks building” above but, tellingly, does not point out that the internal structure of the target is an evenly spaced grid like the old Empire State building, rather than featuring wide open-plan, sparsely supported floor areas like the Twin Towers. “As an engineer”, John Goss would have you believe that both geometry and scale are irrelevant.

            John Goss claims that the Twin Towers must have been brought down by damage to their cores near ground level, despite the fact that the collapse videos clearly show remnants of the cores standing longest of all.

            John Goss championed Donald Trump, because Trump went on-air on 9/11 saying that explosives must have been used on the Twin Towers. But Goss posts the edited video, without the part where Trump calls Larry Silverstein a “good friend”, because of course demolition theorists regard Silverstein as a prime suspect. This is truly ironic; one demolition theorist deliberately keeping other demolition theorists ignorant of inconvenient facts.

            But the way John Goss really upsets me is by his betrayal of engineering ethics. It is every engineer’s moral responsibility to describe any engineering failure as honestly and as accurately as possible, yet John Goss consistently warps facts to achieve the opposite, even going so far as to misrepresent Newton’s laws, to attempt to indoctrinate a child and corrupt the educational process.

            John Goss seems an ideal emissary for the 9/11 Lies Movement.

            Twin Tower demolition theory is just a daft idea that someone made up, but it has caught the imagination of about 10% of the population who are now so vocal that they make sensible discussion of 9/11 all but impossible. If Twin Tower demolition theory was a psi-op, it has to be one of the most successful of all time, right up there with “the resurrection of Christ”. 9/11 would be the ideal stick with which to beat US collusion with “Islamic” fascism, but you can’t even mention 9/11 because some ignoramus will start bleating about “violations of the laws of physics”.

            Demolition theorists, the blood of thousands of Syrians is on your hands, too.

          • Nikko

            Kempe @ 23.08
            Goss made an categorical statement that top down collapse cannot happen, his exact words, it defies the laws of physics; so he claims. When faced with evidence to the contrary he now seems to be suggesting that non-steel structured buildings obey different laws of physics! Amazing! How many times have we gone over this same ground yet the Troofers still cling to the same old mantra. See my comments somewhere above about nailing jelly to a wall.
            Here’s another (partial) top down collapse that obeyed different laws of physics:-
            https://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ljp43zIqiX1qd72qf.jpg

            Kempe, can you please post some examples of tall steel structures spontaneously collapsing in a top down manner. Your reasoning must be particularly warped if you think that an example of a controlled demolition of a concrete structure 1/10 the height of the Towers proves that they collapsed spontaneously.

            John Goss is absolutely right. What is amazing is that you do not know that different materials have different properties and behave differently.

          • Clark

            “Spontaneous”, Nikko? Please define “spontaneous”.

            See? Just another contributor to the 9/11 Lies Movement.

            Nikko, you wrote “John Goss is absolutely right, but John Goss wrote, “None of them falls from the top down! You know why? It cannot happen. […] Do you know what? It cannot be modeled. You know why? It would defy physics”

            Please post the inequality that proves this impossibility, since “absolutely right” John Goss seems incapable of providing anything but very shrill rhetoric.

          • Kempe

            ” What is amazing is that you do not know that different materials have different properties and behave differently. ”

            They all obey the same laws of physics.

          • John Goss

            “Goss made an categorical statement that top down collapse cannot happen, his exact words, it defies the laws of physics; so he claims. When faced with evidence to the contrary he now seems to be suggesting that non-steel structured buildings obey different laws of physics!”

            My exact words were:

            ” Nevertheless I should be interested to see a model construction where it falls from the top down in near freefall. Do you know what? It cannot be modeled. You know why? It would defy physics.”

            But for somebody claiming to have civil engineering qualifications I am surprised you think a top down collapse is demonstrated by a controlled non steel-structured verinage demolition where the explosives start in the middle of the building.

        • Clark

          Verinage – deliberate mechanical weakening and sudden deformation of the uprights of two adjacent floors deliberately drops the top part of a building onto the section beneath. Gravity effects rapid destruction of both sections.

          Typical controlled demolition – explosives are used to deliberately drop the top section of a building onto the section beneath. Gravity effects rapid destruction of both sections.

          Twin Towers – deliberate aircraft impacts and fire mechanically weakened and deformed uprights of adjacent floors, dropping the top section onto the section beneath. Gravity effected the rapid destruction of both sections.

          Physics is looking as consistent as ever.

  • John Goss

    “Last weekend AE911Truth board member Roland Angle traveled to Alabama to present at the annual meeting of the Mississippi/Alabama Engineering Society. Speaking to a room of 30 fellow civil engineers, Roland delivered his first-ever presentation on the topic of 9/11, titled “Progressive Collapse and the World Trade Center: A Closer Look.”

    Unsure how this audience would respond to his dismantling of the “progressive collapse” theory advanced by NIST and professor Zdeněk Bažant, Roland found the engineers there to be fully engaged and receptive. The seminar was met with emphatic applause, and several participants approached Roland to discuss how they could help in our mission.” A&E9/11Truth.

    Having worked for ten years documenting simulation software I am choosing not to engage with the Heath Robinson garage inventors of new physics. Simulation software is only as good as the algorithms which drive it. The modeling we did was very representative and reflected reality.

    • Clark

      Yes, that’s right; refuse to engage – on a matter of rigorous science.

      Present the proof you claim to have, or retract. That is how it is done in the scientific community. If you do neither, your claim to speak with scientific authority is fraudulent.

  • Clark

    All this effort from the demolition theorists, apparently to protect the neocon-islamofascist alliance from critical scrutiny.

    Let’s have another sixty years of more of the same; Libya, Syria, ISIS. Blood, blood blood.

    • Paul Barbara

      @ Clark June 6, 2017 at 13:21
      No, not to protect, but to oppose thyose noxious entities you mentioned.
      By the way, why not come and join me on a Demo for the 50th Anniversary of the attack on the USS Liberty?
      Thursday 8th June US Embassy 12:00 – 14:30, and Israeli Embassy 15:00 – 18:00.

      • Clark

        Opposing the alliance can’t involve erasing “Islamic” fascism from the picture, but that would seem to be the effect of the repeated cries of “false flag”. I really don’t get it. Even if such attacks are really part of a Gladio-type operation, well, Operation Gladio used genuine fascists to perpetrate atrocities; what’s the supposed advantage in denying the involvement of the violent fascists?

        I remember that you mentioned the demo about a month ago. I have an appointment at 14:00 on Thursday; I only arranged it yesterday. I’ve been feeling down lately; I’ll see how I feel about attending the second half (I could probably arrive between 16:00 and 17:00), but I’ll probably save my energy for matters ongoing and urgent.

  • Crackps

    http://www.watchsdocumentary.com/oil-smoke-and-mirrors/
    Oil Smoke and Mirrors Light gives us a serious criticism about the recent history of us, about the circumstances of the current world of us and to the future of our common under the light of difficulties impending energy production , Few reports and false.

    Through a series of open, frank and clear interviews, the film argues that the strange events surrounding the equally monstrous attacks and the 11/9 pursuit in the war on terrorism can be better understood in the wider context of a Divergence between the most recent and the largest existing oil reserves and the global demand for oil is increasing.

    Photos Oil, Smoke and Mirrors is one of the culture of global politics have extremely tragic intermediary, for whatever reason, can be clearly separated from the values ​​it claims to represent.

    Although the ideas presented in this film seem to be uncomfortable, but ultimately these challenges affirm can indeed be achieved and can be overcome if we can find the courage to recognize them.

      • Clark

        Between them, the US to the south and Russia to the north have the oil fields surrounded. The US tries to overthrow any government which won’t host Western military bases.

        With development, renewable (and nuclear) power could supply energy in abundance, but they cannot directly provide liquid fuel, which is essential and irreplaceable for agriculture, transport and military operations, all of which are dependent upon combustion engines. Vast infrastructure is required to make clean liquid fuel. Until that expensive infrastructure is constructed, the manoeuvring and conflict over liquid hydrocarbon fuel will continue.

        • Deepgreenpuddock

          i have long thought the same thing – that it is a ‘race’ to develop suitable technology before the
          damage from fossil fuels becomes too great. Another problem is the loss of resources, such as rare metals, depleted by re-cycling difficulties and failures.
          Another problem s the maintenance of high yield agriculture. Modern agriculture systems are really just ways to convert oil into food. Not directly of course, but through the systems such as cattle feedlot intensive farming, which depends on concentrated food, which is created only with the use of oil /hydrocarbon energy.
          these systems provide food with a business plan which is ‘efficient’ but not environmentally sustainable in terms of energy.

          • Clark

            Agriculture is highly dependent upon liquid fuel. The harvest will be starting soon; each combine harvester will be burning about forty litres of diesel per hour. The tractors which tend it, and at other times of the year plough the soil and drill the seed, each burn up to twenty litres per hour.

            Stationary energy requirements can be met with electricity from renewable resources. Private transport could be migrated to electric cars. But batteries just don’t have sufficient energy density for harvesting, ploughing and air transport. I’ve seen the global human population double in my lifetime. To sustain such high numbers, we need to synthesize liquid fuel.

          • Deepgreenpuddock

            I suppose I am thinking that ‘….to sustain such high numbers we need to synthesise liquid fuel’ means that these high numbers wont be sustained.
            Resource problems too. UCLA paper from a few years ago suggested that phosphate would run out about 2050. Suggested that all human waste and human remains would need to be ‘recycled’ by about 2030. Not sure how that would go down. -Grandad turned into fertiliser. Shouldn’t laugh. I AM a grandad.
            A TV prog a week or two ago went into this in more depth than I have seen before but it steered away from the apocalyptic sub text and visited a prototype scale human waste processing/sewage recycling system. It apparently recovers some of the material into a usable form that conserves some proportion of the phosphate in the waste so a step in the right direction but fact is that most of these nutrients just wash down to the sea and cause pollution problems on their way. the system would need to be replicated across the whole country. The infrastructure costs are scary.

          • Clark

            I hadn’t heard of “peak phosphorus”. It has a Wikipedia page, but the more comprehensive article is this one:

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

            The background to this concept is the book The Limits to Growth, commissioned by the Club of Rome. These, and the United Nations’ Agenda 21, are the target of the “depopulation conspiracy theory”, which alleges that a mass cull of humanity is being perpetrated by the United Nations. There are also links to the “climate change is a hoax” “conspiracy theory”.

            I do wonder if such “conspiracy theories” are entirely spontaneous or whether they are “seeded” to any extent by big business. As with Twin Tower demolition theory, “chemtrail” theory and others, they promote distrust of academia and universities.

          • Clark

            Such “conspiracy theories” can mobilise misled activists to oppose various forms of regulation. Twin Tower demolition theory provides considerable cover for the neocon-islamofascist alliance, which is helpful to Western hydrocarbon companies, as well as spreading the idea that skyscrapers are invincibly strong, and being used against inconvenient critics of corporatism such as Noam Chomsky. Agenda 21 “conspiracy theories” turn some against the United Nations, the international forum in which the numerous governments of poorer countries can apply pressure upon the governments of the richer, more industrialised minority. “Chemtrail” theory always accuses only governments even though commercial aircraft are supposedly doing the spraying, and tends to corrupt the message that industry in general causes pollution and that carbon dioxide is responsible for climate change.

  • Deepgreenpuddock

    The paper was not a conspiracy type of thing. It was an academic assessment of the availability of phosphate rock and the rate of extraction and use, and the amount recovered and the rate of depletion/loss.

    The problem isn’t that crops won’t grow, the problem is that the high yield associated with modern systems of agriculture cannot be sustained. One must assume that phosphate would follow some pattern akin to that of oil. One would expect the price of the commodity to rise generally, and fluctuate as easy sources become exhausted requiring exploitation of more marginal areas..
    The depletion can be reduced by permaculture and no-till techniques and by judicious forestry management. Soil depletion/erosion is connected to phosphate loss but the agri business is not really much different to any other. Profit is the dominant factor and profit can only be sustained by these forcing techniques.
    There have been various crises in the past regarding declining agricultural output. For a time after Guano was depleted, and before mineral sources became available, there was active extraction of the bones of the fallen in various battles, including Waterloo.

      • Paul Barbara

        @ Clark June 12, 2017 at 22:51
        And the reason (phosphate) behind Morocco’s illegal annexation of large parts of Western Sahara, and of the UN’s (America’s) sitting on their hands at blatant invasion and occupation. So much for the ‘UN’, like the UK America’s poodle (and of course the US is the Bankster’s and Globalist’s poodle).

  • Paul Barbara

    All this business about ‘overpopulation’ has already been sorted by the Illuminists and Banksters – massive culling of the human population by 85 – 95%, by wars, famines and intentionally created pandemics.
    Chemtrails, which some don’t believe are being intentionally sprayed on us, are both to increase war-making possibilities and to create famines; two of the three above-mentioned methods, and the ‘pandemics, can similarly be spread through ‘chemtrails’. So there is no way they will stop the program.
    Here is just a two-minute video – can anyone explain the on-off ‘contrails’???
    ‘Climate Engineering Spray Dispersion Caught On Film ( Dane Wigington GeoengineeringWatch.org ) ‘:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PLwfFtDFZDpwulG0PJ9IID0iypsRXDSa1E&v=qZ37X2sKXDo

    In case anyone thinks it’s a case of ‘photo-shopping’, I have pictures (albeit stills) that I have personally taken, so I KNOW my pics are real.

    ‘NWO Plans To Depopulate The Earth’: http://rense.com/general64/pordc.htm
    This is by no means the only link, but is useful because of the list of sources.

    Al Queda? Just another proxy construct by the ‘Graet Satan’ & Co. to attain their murderous, genocidal NWO / One World Gulag of those they spare from the cull. Just like they armed the thugs who brought down Michael Manley’s Jamaican Government, and used the Contra murderous scumbags to destabilise the Sandinista Government of Nicaragua, and are paying people to assassinate and destabilise Venezuela, so they march on uninterupted with their Regime Change.
    War on Terror? Enough to make Nick Rockefeller laugh!
    ‘Veteran Green Beret and Special Ops Soldiers Admit U.S. Trains Our Enemies in Syria’: June 9, 2017
    http://www.wakingtimes.com/2017/06/09/veteran-green-beret-special-ops-soldiers-acknowledge-u-s-trains-enemies-syria/?

    ‘US Special Forces sabotage White House policy gone disastrously wrong with covert ops in Syria’:
    https://africanspress.org/2017/05/28/us-special-forces-sabotage-white- house-policy-gone-disastrously-wrong-with-covert-ops-in-syria/

    Unfortunately Clark’s faith in the UN is built on wishful thinking: apart from the Security Council vetoes (of which the US is by far the major user), the General Assembly is largely bought and paid for, and in any case have no teeth.
    America (and it’s cronies) does what it likes, ignores International Law and Conventions, and is the true embodiment of a ‘Rogue State’, far more dangerous than North Korea (which came to it’s present state through America and it’s ‘cronies’ massive war crimes during the Korean War (including carpet-bombing civilian towns and cities, and using biological weapons (WMD’s)).

      • Clark

        Right. So there’s no point in organising politically, nor in critical thinking. All the sheeple have to do is believe YOU, personally.

        I suppose your purity certificate is tattooed on your forehead or something, and that’s how you know all your intuitions are right.

        And the people who believed the “babies taken from incubators” hoax can make exactly the same arguments.

    • Deepgreenpuddock

      If the illuminati exist and are such technical wizards, why don’t they just develop a smallpox vaccine and then get everyone they ‘like’ vaccinated then release some of the weaponised smallpox virus. By now, most of the population will have no immune protection apart from a few who have natural immunity. That would get the population down in a few years.
      Not very plausible.
      Don’t you think that it is much more likely that there is just an unwillingness by politicians to make a huge financial commitment to avoiding action on (say) over-population, or that the status quo suits the purposes of some political systems. i mean that the problem may be obvious but the politicians and their cronies may be doing very nicely out of it.
      Not sure I believe in the concept of overpopulation as such, although i would accept that high population density brings problems with it, but the issues are really poverty, chaotic or disrupted societies, poor standard of living, poor education, corruption, poor social integration(i.e social divisions and class systems). These are ultimately (mainly) political and partly technical problems
      Essentially the need to create many babies disappears when education, decent living conditions and social progress on issues such a women’s rights are allowed to go forward or promoted.

      • Paul Barbara

        @ Deepgreenpuddock June 13, 2017 at 12:21
        It’s not a case of them being ‘technical wizards’, it’s a case of them selling their souls to the Devil, who gives them the power and knowledge to carry out their abominations.
        Have no fear, these things will come to pass.
        I won’t try to find more links, as I doubt you have followed all the sources included in the link in my post.

    • Clark

      “MANY of us…”

      Yeah, right. So either we accept “chemtrails”, “depopulation”, Twin Tower demolition theory, reject all vaccines, reject all academic research, etc. etc. etc., and accept your supernatural interpretation of politics, or we’re just stupid sheeple and can expect to be periodically smeared as being agents of the “Illuminati”. All very black-or-white.

      Hasn’t it occurred to you that you might be just another human? Just an equal, with no special pipeline of Truth from God? Hasn’t it occurred to you that you might be as susceptible to illusory superiority as everyone else is?

        • Deepgreenpuddock

          I suppose my interest in the ‘9/11 post’ is the major separation between some of the posters here. Broadly of course it divides into people who believe there is sinister plot and those who believe that is nonsense and seek out a rational explanation. Clark is obviously the proponent of the latter-almost to a degree of being evangelical for organised and logical thinking. Obviously Paul is a proponent, with others, of the ‘plotting’ scenario.
          What I find interesting is the schism here. i would also say that it is possible that a rational explanation could include plotting,conspiracy, secrecy and greed and irrational interpretations. For example the ‘plotting’ (or positioning or analysis) of certain actors in this situation may well have included clandestine, manipulative elements. It is almost certainly the case that this is intuitively true.

          One must assume that the analysis and positioning adopted by secret bodies such as parts of the intelligence services have manipulated and projected actions that have been pro-actively seeking certain results( i.e. it is a conspiracy). On the other hand this process is almost certainly at the service of people who regard themselves as rational actors (Trump excepted).
          For instance It is inconceivable that there is no relationship between the analytic position and the reality of what actually occurs-so whatever the dominant analytic position within the secret services had some bearing on what happened on 9/11.It is pretty difficult to know this unless one s in some kind of privileged position,
          Analytic positions are always complex, highly developed, based on trails of evidence of mixed quality and weight, and therefore difficult to counter. In other words, these assumptions of being part of a rational process acquire their own gravity and develop inertia. (We seem to have just witnessed this ‘inertia of coalesced thinking’ within the political world of the UK regarding May and Corbyn. The extent of the error among the significant operators (media etc) in this activity system can only be explained by some kind of group thinking)
          There are also considerable elements of intuitive thinking, and bias is almost always impossible to eliminate from these systems. It seems likely that someone who has a successful career and becomes a General or very senior individual in the (say) CIA, must have been pre-disposed to this position whether by virtue of having the required degrees of conformity, or by being intellectually aligned to the prevailing dominant ideas. One can be an ‘independent or innovative thinker’ within a context of extreme conformity ( armed services with their rigid hierarchies immediately spring to mind) . The ‘innovations’ thus conform to a dominant pattern. This means that positions can be frequently ill-judged but may be ‘optimal’ from some viewpoint.

          it is also clear that both sides of this argument are convinced of their rightness-in that, at root, there is a wish by both sides to approach what might be described as a just, perspicacious and insightful resolution of this inherent division. i feel sure that Paul, in raising the possibility of the ‘illuminati’ is referring to this hidden world of thought and the consequence of thought, while at the same time being motivated by a deep sense of seeking justice for those who are harmed and disadvantaged by these calculations.
          Clark, in pointing to the very credible scenario of partially understood engineering, corner cutting, dodgy construction and the absence of any kind of anticipation that a large plane would be deliberately flown into these very large iconic buildings. That all seems ‘rational’ but there remains the serious doubt that the actions of all these people were not benign. There was almost certainly collusion and conspiracy to make more profit by minimising some factors and maximising other factors.
          There was also the near certainty that this was combined with the manipulations conducted by the elements within the (say) ‘secret’ services who were (say) monitoring and perhaps even manipulating a group of ‘plotters’ who planned the hijack.

          To be rational about the ‘conspiracy /plotting is that the issue of 9/11 challenges our psychological appreciation of real issues. How to say this: Our minds create halls of mirrors, but the facts are real enough.

          • Clark

            Deepgreenpuddock, thanks for this comment; I will have to read it several times before I really assimilate it.

            Absolutely I believe there was a plot, and absolutely I believe that the plot extended far beyond the governmental and mass-media depictions of it. My point is to try to flesh out what really happened as best we can from the fragments of evidence that are available.

            To even attempt that I need to hold in mind a lot of unresolved possibilities, and it is very challenging. While I do so I find myself criticised for not accepting as determined fact various beliefs that have become popular with various minorities.

            We are all stuck on this ball of rock together. We either resolve our differences or suffer the consequences.

          • Clark

            And meanwhile, I’m going under. Paul, John Goss etc. don’t realise it, but their taunts and condemnations are aimed at a badly wounded animal.

          • Paul Barbara

            Conspiracies have been around since humans inhabited the earth; we are surrounded by them in all walks of life.
            Arms sales are production and sales are highly profitable, so arms manufacturers love wars, frequently selling to both sides. Peace is anathema to them, so it makes perfect sense that they would do their level best to foment wars by whatever means they can. Some may dismiss this as ‘conspiracy theory’.
            Equally, a government that wishes to steal land or resources from another country or even group within its own country will often, and has often, provoke the other country/group to an act against it (Pearl Harbour), or commit a False Flag attack on itself (9/11) , or pretend the group or government they wish to attack has done so (Gulf of Tonkin LIE).
            ‘ 53 ADMITTED False Flag Attacks’: http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/02/x-admitted-false-flag-attacks.html
            And they are just acknowledged ones.
            So for 9/11 NOT to have been a ‘False Flag’ attack would be far stranger than for it to have been one.
            Cui bono? Just about everyone EXCEPT the Muslims, Western taxpayers and the “… dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy” (as Kissinger called the military) who happened to die or get badly injured and their
            families and friends.
            As highly decorated Marine General Smedley Butler wrote in ‘War is a Racet’: ‘….I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents….’.
            When I wrote of the ‘Illuminati’ and ‘selling ones soul to the Devil’, it will obviously be dismissed if you don’t believe in God and the Devil; I accept this.
            There is such a mass of circumstantial evidence that 9/11 (and many other ‘terrorist attacks’) was a ‘classic ‘False Flag’ (in other cases the attacks are often faked, but have the desired effects) that to dismiss the claim as ‘conspiracy theory’ is lunacy, but is so heavily promoted as such that most people subscibe to the lunacy.
            ‘If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.’

            And why do Truthers rail against the MSM? Well, the following quote can explain that:
            ‘John Swinton’: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Swinton
            John Swinton (1829–1901) was a Scottish-American journalist, newspaper publisher, and orator.

            ‘There is no such a thing in America as an independent press, unless it is out in country towns. You are all slaves. You know it, and I know it. There is not one of you who dares to express an honest opinion. If you expressed it, you would know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid $150 for keeping honest opinions out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for doing similar things. If I should allow honest opinions to be printed in one issue of my paper, I would be like Othello before twenty-four hours: my occupation would be gone. The man who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the street hunting for another job. The business of a New York journalist is to distort the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to villify, to fawn at the feet of Mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread, or for what is about the same — his salary. You know this, and I know it; and what foolery to be toasting an “Independent Press”! We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are jumping-jacks. They pull the string and we dance. Our time, our talents, our lives, our possibilities, are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes.’
            And that was over 50 years before (the ongoing) ‘Operation Mocking Bird’!
            Bottom line – conspiracies are real (but that is not to say some ‘conspiracy theories’ are not bunkum).

          • Clark

            Paul, I agree with most of that – or at least with most that I know much about.

            I can’t call 9/11 “false flag” because it doesn’t even have a flag. “Muslims” isn’t a flag; Muslims are a quarter of the world’s population. They may as well blame “men under forty”, which wouldn’t be a flag either. That’s my objection to most of these claims of “terrorism”. Terrorism is defined as attacks upon innocents for political objectives, so unless some group convincingly claims responsibility and states their demands, by definition, it isn’t terrorism.

            Now, the mass “news” media and various governments keep calling these incidents terrorism, so either they’re lying, or they know who’s doing it and what they want but they’re not telling us. Either is a subversion of democracy.

            The critical point from the John Swinton quote is: “We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes”. And to a large extent, so are governments. People automatically think that “propaganda” means government telling the “news” media what to write. Wrong. The hidden hands influence both, hence the convergence of the stories they project.

            But we still have more influence over government than we do over the powerful actors behind the scenes. We have another type of partial influence over the “news” media. This is why I object to the outright condemnation of government and media – they’re far from perfect, but they’re all we’ve got. Without them, all that’s left is raw power, which will simply kill all opposition, like Shell Oil did in Africa.

            I’ll answer your 12:37 below when I have time…

  • Clark

    Paul, you desperately need to learn critical thinking. Humanity needs as much intelligence as it can muster, because the problems we are facing are very serious, and there are huge quantities of disinformation about.

    I only have to scan your assertions to see that you have not thought them through nor tried to link them into a coherent understanding, because they are full of contradictions and over-simplifications. For instance, on the one hand you claim that countries including the US are acting (illegally) to secure phosphate, but on the other that there is a mass cull of humanity in progress. Well, there’d be no point taking the phosphate if there’s going to be so little population to support.

    So aircraft produce trails intermittently, therefore such trails must be deliberately sprayed chemical toxins. Just think for a moment, rather than seizing upon whichever theories support your foregone conclusion. (1) What would be the point of switching the spray on and off? None. The operator is just fiddling with the switch as he happily poisons himself and his own family, right? And he and thousands like him happily keep it all secret, right? (2) It has always been common to see well defined clouds in an otherwise clear sky. Clouds are a vapour phenomenon, so this proves that variations in conditions cause vapour to condense in those volumes that we call clouds, but right next to them such vapour evaporates and becomes invisible. You can watch this in progress with a pair of binoculars; a cloud isn’t a “thing”, it’s a process, condensing on one side and evaporating on the opposite side (roughly speaking). So if clouds behave like this, then we’d expect vapour trails to behave similarly. In some patches of air the passage of an aircraft is sufficient to precipitate condensation, and in adjacent patches it isn’t. Your evidence argues against “chemtrailing” rather than for it.

    I don’t have “faith” in the UN. It is flawed, as are all human institutions. But I do bother to look at its structure and the positions that various parts of it take, and try to come to an intelligent assessment about it, rather than just dismissing the whole thing and all who contribute to it as puppets of the US, which in turn is a puppet of the Illuminati (sigh), and thus merely a tool to further a depopulation programme.

    Yes, the General Assembly lacks power, and the governments of the more numerous poorer, weaker countries are highly susceptible to undue influence of wealthy, powerful entities, including banks and corporations. This is the human condition; nearly all humans are manipulative and self-serving to various degrees, because we are products of evolution and needed those motivations to survive and reproduce.

    Then there’s the UN Security Council, which has many rotating members, and five permanent members. The permanent members are the five “Nuclear Weapons States”, which have special privileges under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and each hold a veto over Security Council decisions. Those states are:

    The US – Russia – China – the UK – France

    There’s something immediately obvious about this list – Russia and China each stand alone, but the US and the UK are closely bound by their “Special Relationship”, and France is far more likely to support the US and the UK than it is to support either Russia or China. There is a clear imbalance of power. This, again, is the human condition; those who gain power do all they can to hang onto it. This is not a sign of devil-worship; it is merely natural.

    So al Qaeda is “Just another proxy construct by the ‘Great Satan’ & Co”? No. Maybe the name and grouping is merely such a construct, but the malign underlying influence, and the ideology of those acting under that name have an existence that is far more independent; the roots of it lurk in every human mind, including mine and yours.
    – – – – –
    You seem to have a “puppetry” model of human affairs. The evil actions of any given group are purely the result of manipulation by a more powerful group, itself manipulated by a more powerful group still, until we arrive at the penultimate power, Satan the Devil.

    But such a model deprives each actor (apart from Satan and Jehovah) of the essence of conscious existence, which is to be a moral agent making decisions based upon the conscience bestowed upon us by God or Nature.

    Everyone has responsibility, not just those at the top of each pyramid of power. You and I have responsibility, and undoubtedly, some of our actions have contributed to evil outcomes. That is inevitable in any reality that supports free will.

    Unsupported assertion, Justice, Peace? No. We have to start at the beginning, and that means admitting our own fallibility and turning instead to evidence and rational discussion.

    • Paul Barbara

      @ Clark June 14, 2017 at 12:37
      ‘..For instance, on the one hand you claim that countries including the US are acting (illegally) to secure phosphate,…’
      Would you not agree that the US and other countries act illegally to secure land and resources across the globe?
      ‘..there’d be no point taking the phosphate if there’s going to be so little population to support….’
      Western Sahara was invaded by Morocco in the mid-1970’s; anyway, they have not put their ‘human culling’ into high gear just yet, so untill then they’ll continue their pillage and rapine.
      ‘..So al Qaeda is “Just another proxy construct by the ‘Great Satan’ & Co”? No….’
      It”s a well-known fact that Jihadi terrorists were armed, trained and paid by the US to fight the Russians in Afghanistan. And ISIL/ISIS/IS or whatever other name is conjured up for them ‘just happen’ to serve the West’s and Israel’s objectives – you would probably say pure coincidence.
      By the way, I do not think you are an ‘agent’, just mistaken and stubbornly so. You think I’m mistaken, I think you are. Don’t take it all so personally. It’s human nature to disagree.

      • glenn_uk

        It appears you’ve ignored almost everything Clark has said in his long and detailed post. Instead, you’ve gone off on a couple of almost completely irrelevant tangents, as if that was somehow a sufficient answer.

      • Clark

        “you would probably say pure coincidence”

        Why do you think this of me?

        “I do not think you are an ‘agent’”

        So why have you repeatedly insinuated that I am?

        Could the answer to these two questions be that the seed of human conflict hides in your heart, too?

        • Paul Barbara

          @ Clark June 14, 2017 at 23:36
          ‘– “you would probably say pure coincidence”
          Why do you think this of me?’
          Well, if you don’t think it’s a coincidence, you are agreeing with me that these groups are working to American, Israeli, Turkish, Saudi etc. agendas. It is blatantly obvious anyway, and has been from the outset.
          Yesterday I bought a hot dog from a barbecue run to raise money to help Syrian children. I asked them which children, and found they were an anti-Assad group. There were about 30 of them. Not one of them had heard of the Yinon Plan, or the USS Liberty. I asked them why they were working for US and Israeli interests; they couldn’t answer, but I think I interested a few of them, and they said they would check out the Yinon Plan and the USS Liberty.
          If you think I am insinuating that you are an agent, when I have clearly stated I don’t, that’s up to you.

          • Clark

            “Well, if you don’t think it’s a coincidence, you are agreeing with me that these groups are working to American, Israeli, Turkish, Saudi etc. agendas”

            No, the world is far more complicated than a few “this or that” possibilities.

            Each group has its own agenda. Each person has their own agenda. Sometimes agendas converge, and sometimes manipulation is very successful.

            “I asked them why they were working for US and Israeli interests”

            Yeah it’s not like the Assad-dominated government has done anything that might have pissed anyone off, eh? Pure as the driven snow – no agenda there at all… And no, that doesn’t mean I think the other sides are blameless. My message is the same as that of Jesus (which is how I learned it) – all human hearts need to be refined.

            I think you’re obsessed with dividing sheeple from goatle. Brains descended from apes aren’t too good at thinking of more than two things. But then you might think of yourself as a fallen angel rather than a jumped-up monkey; perfect until that snake had a word with your wife.

  • John Goss

    The Grenfell Tower Inferno is a tragic event. There is going to be a lot of explaining to be done. It went up so fast from the initial blaze. Our compassion should be for those affected by the fire and it has certainly showed the community spirit is not dead.

    One witness says it rerminded her of 9/11 and she had never seen anything like it. I can understand the analogy but the two events are nothing like one another. Grenfell Tower was a real inferno. Now largely under control it burnt for some18 hours. It is not a steel-structured buiding. And it is still standing.

    http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/622234/Grenfell-Tower-block-London-fire-Latimer-Road-witnesses-compare-9-11-September-11-terror

    Floors of the twin towers where allegedly planes entered were nothing like the towering inferno that burnt and continues to burn in London. They only burnt for an hour or so. The twin towers were steel-structured buildings and extremely rigid. The much less rigid Grenfell Tower burnt, as would be expected from the flat where the initial fire started and spread, rapidly, upwards and across in an uneven manner whereas the twin towers spread conveniently evenly. Anyone who has seen this dreaful tragedy of Grenfell Tower must now know there is no way the twin towers were brought down by fire.

    • Clark

      “Now largely under control it burnt for some18 hours. It is not a steel-structured buiding. And it is still standing”

      Yes. As an engineer, or at least after all the links myself and Kempe have posted including testimony of fire-fighters with decades of experience, you should know that concrete is more resilient to fire than is steel.

      “Grenfell Tower was a real inferno”

      The Twin Towers were each a real inferno. People broke out windows and jumped to their deaths to escape the heat.

      “The twin towers were steel-structured buildings and extremely rigid”

      No, the Twin Towers were unusually flexible because they had hardly any cross-bracing between core and perimeter. Consequently, they had to be fitted with thousands of viscous dampers, without which they would have been “unoccupiable”, according to structural engineer Charlie Thornton:

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

      “the [fire in the] twin towers spread conveniently evenly”

      Conveniently?! I doubt the victims saw it that way, John; you really make me wonder at times. In fact widespread fire was started simultaneously across multiple floors of the Twin Towers, by the “alleged” aircraft impacts (which were witnessed by hundreds of people). Such suddenly widespread fire, and the Towers’ unusually lightweight construction, were contributory to the rapid onset of collapse.

      “Anyone who has seen this dreaful tragedy of Grenfell Tower must now know there is no way the twin towers were brought down by fire”

      Fire and damage, John. You left out the damage, yet again. It is every engineer’s ethical responsibility to describe engineering failures as fully and as honestly as possible.

      And you didn’t respond to my question above, either:

      https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-112/#comment-687268

      • Paul Barbara

        @ Clark June 14, 2017 at 23:23
        ‘…The Twin Towers were each a real inferno. People broke out windows and jumped to their deaths to escape the heat….’
        Sure they did; nanothermate burns at extremely high temeratures, way beyond kerosene or office furnishings.
        And I’m sure you have seen the picture of the woman looking out from the hole were we are told a Boeing entered; she doesn’t look stressed by the heat: ‘Woman in the WTC hole inferno’: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=px-nflAtHJY
        She is aalso shown on this website: http://x11drone.0catch.com/
        There is other material on the site that may be of interest.
        And I’m sure you have seen REAL blazing infernos of steel-framed high rise buildings, totally engulfed by flames, burning for up to 24 hours. The WTC Twins belched black smoke, signs of an oxygen-starved fire which is always cooler than a ‘blazing inferno’.

        • Clark

          “Sure they did…”

          (Agreement or sneering? I genuinely can’t tell, because…)

          “nanothermate burns at extremely high temeratures, way beyond kerosene or office furnishings”

          So it was much hotter…

          “…the woman looking out from the hole were we are told a Boeing entered; she doesn’t look stressed by the heat”

          Oh! Much cooler!

          Who cares? Just argue whatever because I don’t accept Twin Tower demolition theory.

          • Paul Barbara

            @ Clark June 16, 2017 at 16:20
            There is no contradiction – the fires were cooler, because they were oxygen-starved. Nanothermate is not a part of the fire, but creates terrific heat to burn through steel. So the molten steel ensuing will heat up the air, but will not be part of the fire.
            Where the woman was looking out, the fire had burnt out, and it wasn’t even smoking.
            The WTC fires were not a ‘blazing inferno’, as is plain to see. Many high-rise fires have shown on the internet that really were ‘blazing infernos’, including Greffel Tower (which as you pointed out was not a steel framed building).
            Can you not see the difference? Probably those specs you bought from glenn_uk; try and get your money back.

          • Clark

            “The WTC fires were not a ‘blazing inferno’”:

            http://femr2.ucoz.com/photo/6-0-201-3

            Please try to remember the scale. On three floors we can see fire across an entire face – sixty metres each. We can see two patches of flame ten metre high; about six times your height – imagine that flame towering over you. The entire top of the building is issuing copious smoke from all sides. The area of each floor is comparable with a football pitch, and there is fire on at least twelve of them.

            Please stop minimising this.

    • Clark

      I see little reason to care what the papers say.

      But my own eyes, my own reckoning, and the international engineering, physics and fire-fighting communities are another matter.

      • Paul Barbara

        @ Clark June 14, 2017 at 23:36
        Whatever you may think I am ‘insinuating’, my categoric statement that I don’t (due to your personal acquaintance with Craig and others) should have set your mind at rest.
        I wonder if glenn_uk will dress you down re responding to my points? I don’t expect so.

        • Clark

          But you’ve just done it to glenn_uk instead!

          https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-112/#comment-687441

          I’ve seen this for so long and so many times, I know precisely what it means, even if you’re subconsciously hiding the meaning from yourself. It’s for your fellow conspiracy theorists; “he criticises my position, but his quick response demonstrates that he’s an agent monitoring and policing the threads on behalf of The Conspiracy”.

          This is the code by which your cabal surreptitiously communicate and enforce conformity to their preferred mythology. Such communication was rightly identified by Cass Sunstein, I believe, BUT, and I stress this in the strongest possible terms, I entirely oppose his suggestion that freedom of speech be curtailed; just because someone has an inkling of a given problem doesn’t imply that any action they propose is the least bit helpful.

          Three people see a snake. One says “it’s venomous; kill it”. The second says “it lives here in the woods; avoid it and let it be”. The third says “it’s Satan; it’s here to deceive us”.

          • Clark

            And there it is again: – “I wonder if glenn_uk will dress you down re responding to my points? I don’t expect so”, in other words, and for the gallery, “they’re working together”.

            What points do you wish me to respond to? I believe I said I agreed, overall, and then listed my specific disagreements along with my reasons and own viewpoints.

      • Paul Barbara

        @ Clark June 15, 2017 at 00:52
        Yeh, of course. But the Firefighters had no idea that the Twin Towers would collapse; it was not thought possible. That is why 350-odd of them died; they had not considered demolition charges, any more than NIST etc. claimed not to have.
        Have your eyes ever seen King Kong trampling on US cities? Or US Astronauts prancing about on the Moon? Touche.

        • Clark

          “Touche”

          There it is again; your own attraction to conflict; we all have it; the difficult part is to recognise the feelings within oneself. You consign all such motivation to some shadowy, unidentified and forever distant cabal of “devil worshippers” (and occasionally to random European performance artists). Such projection is well documented by psychological science; it’s a way of denying uncomfortable truths about oneself.

          “the Firefighters had no idea that the Twin Towers would collapse; it was not thought possible”

          This is not so; read the fire-fighters’ testimonies:

          http://jay-911.blogspot.co.uk/

          Many within the Towers reported creaking, deformation of the buildings, localised collapses, etc. Dedicated, they continued nonetheless. Outside, city engineers observed the tipping of the top sections. Collapse was anticipated and the order to withdraw was given, but the cheap, crap radios failed to relay the order, and the Twin Towers’ cheap, crap emergency address system failed them, too.

          Read the senior fire-fighters’ public statements. Over and over they say that in a fire, the modern, lightweight skyscraper construction is inferior, and the older, heavier construction is more resilient:

          http://www.oilempire.us/wtc-design.html

          “…modern high-rise design, expecially for investment-grade buildings like the WTC complex, aims at borderline safety measures to maximize profits of those who construct such structures.”

          You wrote: “Have your eyes ever seen King Kong trampling on US cities?”, but the aircraft impacts and the building collapses were videoed and photographed by large numbers of ordinary members of the public, and all those records are entirely consistent with each other. The hundreds of witnesses’ testimonies are broadly consistent with these as well. There is no valid comparison with a centrally coordinated production.

          • Ba'al Zevul

            random European performance artists

            That guy who covers himself in black shoe polish and pretends to be Charlie Chaplin IS the devil incarnate. Trust me.

          • Clark

            Obviously, Ba’al Zevul would have to be an insider to know that. Most likely he personally pushed the button to demolish the Twin Towers.

          • Paul Barbara

            @ Clark June 15, 2017 at 12:04
            ‘…– “the Firefighters had no idea that the Twin Towers would collapse; it was not thought possible”
            This is not so; read the fire-fighters’ testimonies:…’
            I should of course have said ‘initailly no firefighters thought the Twins would collapse’.
            You probably are aware that a fire team got to the seat of the fire and reported two lines (hoses) would be sufficient to put out the fire. After ‘demolitions’ started in earnest, and the building started to creak and groan, sure they were worried, but it was too late.
            Also remeber there was a massive explosion in the basement, as reported by William Rodriguez and others, BEFORE the ‘plane’ ‘hit’ WTC 1 (WR says about seven seconds before the ‘explosion’ at the top); but of course Rodriguez’ testimony was held behind closed doors, and never even made the ‘Commission Report’; as for the other witnesses Rodriguez wanted to get included in the testimony, they were simply refused permission.
            Had Boeings really hit the Twins, most of the fuel would have exploded in an extremely short time, as we ‘saw’ at the Pentagon. You may have seen the picture of a chair with an open, undamaged book sitting on it, just inside the alleged entry hole; I certainly have seen the picture.

          • Clark

            Paul, you continue to warp all evidence to propagandise for “controlled demolition”.

            Pockets of fire were encountered as fire-fighters ascended. A particular pocket of fire was reported as requiring two hoses, but you only have to look at the photos and videos to see that there was widespread, serious fire. Here’s an example; please don’t pretend this could have been extinguished with two hoses; the Twin Towers were sixty metres square, and we can see serious fire on at least five floors, the total extent being at least ten floors:

            http://femr2.ucoz.com/photo/6-0-201-3

            We know that Rodriguez was in the sub-levels, and was therefore in no position to judge when the aircraft struck. In his first news interview he described a “big rumbling, like furniture being moved” or similar. We also know that his case was taken on by a rather crazy lawyer, and Rodriguez story became more and more extreme from that point on.

            Rodriguez’s interview notes are here:

            http://911myths.com/index.php?title=File:NYC_Box10_William_Rodriguez.pdf

            Yes, most of the fuel did burn off rapidly, BUT it started widespread fires as it did so. The major, widespread fires are undeniable.

            I don’t claim that there were definitely no explosives in the buildings; it is possible, and has possibly been covered up. However, I am certain that you, and those like you, warp and cherry-pick evidence to make a false case for “controlled demolition”. You really need to read the following because it describes your mode of argument very clearly, which is why such arguments drive the majority away from looking deeper:

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

  • Paul Barbara

    @ Clark June 15, 2017 at 19:57
    ‘…We know that Rodriguez was in the sub-levels, and was therefore in no position to judge when the aircraft struck. In his first news interview he described a “big rumbling, like furniture being moved” or similar….’
    The “big rumbling, like furniture being moved” was way after the initial explosion from a basement level below him, and that at the top. It came while he was on his way up the tower to open locked doors for firemen and people trapped. He was spooked by the noise, which he describes as like a dumpster being dumped onto the floor and moved around, as the floor had been unoccupied for a long time, and no one should have been on that floor. He did not unlock that door.
    I do not know at what stage the fireman says two lines would be enough to put the fire he had found out, but it could not have been a ‘blazing inferno’. And I have previously mentioned that it was largely black smoke emanating from the building, sign of oxygen-starved and cooler fires.

    • Nikko

      The presence of fire, whether blazing or oxygen starved, in the upper sections of the Towers is moot as there were 300m plus of undamaged structure below which was untouched by fire.

    • Clark

      Nikko, your personal inability to understand failure does NOT make such failure impossible.

      We have been through all this. The energy released by the descent of the top sections renders any conceivable contribution from explosives utterly insignificant. Our very conservative estimate for the gravitational potential energy of just the floor assemblies exceeded the energy of 150 tonnes of TNT, if I remember rightly.

      Floor-by-floor pre-rigged demolition of the Twin Towers is an utterly unnecessary hypothesis; there is neither necessity nor evidence for it, and as such it should be discarded, as were phlogiston and the luminiferous ether.

      • Nikko

        We have been through all this. The energy released by the descent of the top sections renders any conceivable contribution from explosives utterly insignificant. Our very conservative estimate for the gravitational potential energy of just the floor assemblies exceeded the energy of 150 tonnes of TNT, if I remember rightly.

        No, “we” have been not been through it as you contributed nothing apart from waffle. According to my calculations and recollection a spontaneous pancaking collapse runs out of energy very soon.

        Clark, you have demonstrated on many occasions that you are not able to do a meaningful scientific calculation and your equating the total potential energy of the building or whatever with the energy released in a pancaking scenario is another proof. Stop waffling and do some proper science ffs if you want to be taken seriously.

        • Clark

          You keep referring to pancaking as the cause. The whole fucking top sections fell.

          You keep saying “spontaneous”. Enormous damage and fire weakened a section of each building, and that’s where they broke.

          You weighed your spreadsheet modes against collapse, considering the fall of just one floor assembly rather than a whole section of ten plus frame and more. All your descriptions are weighted against collapse, too. But engineers’ ethical responsibility is to consider worst case scenarios. Go get a job in marketing.

          Each floor assembly could take about ten times its own weight. The smaller top section was probably about double that. That’s without even considering the dynamic loading of trying to stop the top section after it had started moving.

          Watch the collapses. After initiation, the floor assembles failed quickest leaving the perimeter unbraced to tumble outward. The cores survived longest – just as we would expect.

          I’m sick of this “indestructible buildings” myth, and I’m sick of your misrepresentations, aggression and insults.

          • Nikko

            You are incorrect about my calculation which was modelled on WTC1 and assumed that the collapse started with the top section of 10 floors falling as one.

            I keep saying “spontaneous” because the 300 m or so below the impact zone were undamaged and unaffected by fire.
            Whatever you think, buildings just do not self-destruct into own foot print at or close to freefall speeds. Particularly steel framed ones.

            I offered to go through the calcs and the offer still stands. Do your own and then we’ll compare. Should take less than 30 minutes.

            It is your theory you need to defend. This is what you wrote a few days ago so take your own advice and stop waffling.

            Clark June 6, 2017 @13.12
            Present the proof you claim to have, or retract. That is how it is done in the scientific community. If you do neither, your claim to speak with scientific authority is fraudulent.

          • Nikko

            Watch the collapses. After initiation, the floor assembles failed quickest leaving the perimeter unbraced to tumble outward. The cores survived longest – just as we would expect.

            No we would not expect!

            The floor assemblies were not visible so you are in no position to know how and when they failed.

            The perimeter hardly tumbled outwards but bits of it were ejected sideways with great force. You still need to explain where this force came from.

            The cores hardly survived longest – the upper 300m disappeared like everything else. One or two stumps, may be 50m tall, did survive for a few seconds before disappearing vertically downwards like a telescoping aerial. Do you have an explanation?

          • Clark

            You started with one falling floor assembly (and you KEEP going on about a ‘pancaking causing collapse’ which implies the same). I gave you the benefit of the doubt by assuming that you were referring to the lowest floor of the falling section, and I asked if your model accounted for collisions between the material at the interface zone and further floor assemblies impinging from above. You then said you could start the collapse anywhere, and I pointed out there was only two places to start it from, one corresponding to each collapse.

            “I keep saying “spontaneous” because the 300 m or so below the impact zone were undamaged and unaffected by fire”

            110 storey, 415 metre height, impact zone 11 stories down. So 300 metre is 300/415*110 = ~80 storeys, 300 metre down = ~90 storeys.

            So 300 metre down was hit by the falling debris equivalent to a ninety storey building. Its destruction was not spontaneous.

            “Whatever you think, buildings just do not self-destruct into own foot print at or close to freefall speeds. Particularly steel framed ones”

            I don’t think they do. I think that’s a stupid demolition theorists’ meme. Tell the gallery what YOU think, not what I supposedly think.

            “It is your theory you need to defend”

            20 > 11 QED. We all know buildings can collapse, especially if damaged. By definition, a building is a departure from equilibrium; it has low entropy, which is therefore likely to increase. John Goss claims impossibility of collapse, but of course any building could be weak enough to collapse, say if all its bolts had been badly made.

            “The floor assemblies were not visible so you are in no position to know how and when they failed.”

            We can see copious air and particulates forced out between the perimeter columns as the floor assemblies were smashed through. Such ejection is inevitable. If there were explosives, there would be TWO descending waves of ejections.

            “The perimeter hardly tumbled outwards but bits of it were ejected sideways with great force. You still need to explain where this force came from.”

            Untrue, except at the initial crush zone, as would be expected. Most of the perimeter collapse which is visible is clearly a tumbling of variously sized sections, some enormous. The debris field is consistent with this; roughly cross-shaped around each tower.

            “The cores hardly survived longest – the upper 300m disappeared like everything else. One or two stumps, may be 50m tall, did survive for a few seconds…”

            Utterly untrue; check the video of Peter Ketcham, which shows an early view of the top of one of the ‘spires’, very nearly as high as the damaged zone.

            “…before disappearing vertically downwards like a telescoping aerial. Do you have an explanation?”

            Yes. They’d been subjected to huge stress as up to half a million tonnes of rubble stripped off the floor assemblies that had been attached to them. Presumably a section lower down buckled (possibly pushed inwards as the rubble settled), and so the uprights fell vertically before they could tip over much (though some sections can be seen tipping), the lower sections forced to buckle, zig-zag and break at the joins as they failed to arrest their great mass above.

          • Clark

            There can’t be a competent physicist or engineer in the world who isn’t bored stupid by this frantic demolition theorist posturing and misrepresentation. There are serious questions about 9/11, but the possibility of collapse of the Twin Towers is definitely not one of them. Your incessant, shrill, repetitive, but misleading rhetoric encourages that entire community to dismiss the important questions of 9/11 as ignorant nonsense, and they take most of the academic community with them.

            Is that your mission, anonymous Nikko? To rob the Truth Movement of the support of the well qualified?

          • Clark

            Demolition theorists’ meme “fell into their own footprints” clearly is mutually exclusive with demolition theorists’ meme “massive lateral ejections”.

            This is what you demolition theorists do. You just yank whichever puppet-string you hope will counter whichever element of collapse you happen to be arguing against, disregarding overall integrity of the argument.

            It is disrespectful and treats your audience as unreasoning fools.

          • Nikko

            Clark, all I have done on this thread is to give you the opportunity to substantiate your claims. You have failed to do so every single time because, frankly, you could not do a meaningful analysis and calculation if your life depended on it. Waffle is what you do. You are no engineer, physicist or critical thinker.

            This is what you said recently
            Clark June 6, 2017 @13.12
            Present the proof you claim to have, or retract. That is how it is done in the scientific community. If you do neither, your claim to speak with scientific authority is fraudulent.

            By your own definition you are also a fraud.

          • Clark

            I presented the proof.

            20 > 11

            To explain, the smaller of the top sections (WTC1) weighed nearly twice as much as the topmost standing floor assembly could bear – or, come to that, almost twice as much as the lowest floor assembly of the falling section could exert downwards. Their destruction or disconnection from the frame was inevitable (disregarding the cosmic coincidence of upper and lower sections of vertical frame happening to realign by chance).

            The rest follows from that.

            We don’t need to prove that entropy can increase, no more than we need to prove that one can lose at roulette. It you lot who claim the opposite who need to find a proof, but all you have is Chandler’ Downward Acceleration and Wood’s BBE.

            While you’re at it, can you explain the silence of the international scientific and engineering communities on this matter? Or does your personal intelligence exceed theirs combined?

          • Clark

            And you’re not going to find a proof, because there is no reason that a building, even a Steel Framed one (yawn), should be exempt from thermodynamics.

            Building a building against gravity traps potential gravitational energy into its structure. The taller the building, the further its deviation from energy equilibrium, to which it will eventually return. The trapped energy is most likely to start causing destruction if it begins to be released. The destruction liberates further energy for further destruction, and so on in a chain reaction.

            We are used to this. Things break; Murphy’s law. Destruction can and frequently does accelerate. “Oh shit”.

          • Nikko

            Clark, now you are waffling to the power of 2 or 3.

            Using words or expressions like “inevitable” or the “rest follows from that” does not constitute proof.

            We don’t need to prove that entropy can increase, no more than we need to prove that one can lose at roulette.

            That is already well known – what is not known and what needs to be proven is your theory of gravitational collapse into own footprint at 64% freefall.

            And you’re not going to find a proof, because there is no reason that a building, even a Steel Framed one (yawn), should be exempt from thermodynamics.

            No idea what point you are trying to make but I agree that no building is exempt from the laws of thermodynamics, nor from any other physical laws. So here is your chance to show that your theory is also not exempt.

            You could start by demonstrating that your mechanism of collapse can make it to the ground in the observed timeframe. Then you could explain how the forces of destruction were created and relate the mechanism to the observed collapse velocity profile. A few equations and numbers is all that is needed.

            Clark June 6, 2017 @13.12Present the proof you claim to have, or retract. That is how it is done in the scientific community. If you do neither, your claim to speak with scientific authority is fraudulent.

          • Clark

            Nikko, you’ve got it all back-to-front.

            Aircraft were observed to fly into buildings, doing extensive structural damage and starting extensive fire. The buildings burned for a while. Structural deformation at the damaged zones accelerated, and then the top sections fell onto the sections beneath, destroying both. Tellingly, the building damaged further down failed first, consistent with the greater weight of its top section.

            The obvious inference is that the damage led to complete collapse by these steps, each of which is observable and reasonable.

            However, someone shouted “demolition”, so now we’re supposed to disprove demolition. Someone else shouted “directed energy weapon”, so now we’re supposed to disprove that, too. Yet another shouted “buried nukes”, and we have to disprove that…

            So I’ll shout “steel-munching termites”, and YOU can disprove it. Then I can shout “invisible Godzilla”, “someone replaced all the bolts with plastic ones while no one was looking”, “the Flying Spaghetti Monster did it”, “government suicide agents with barrels of acid”, “Buddhist terrorists with an ancient chanting ritual that hit resonant frequencies”, and on and on and on.

            Demands for proof are not all equal; see Russell’s Teapot. You and Goss claim that rapid collapse is impossible. Thermodynamics says the opposite, so you lot need a proof to stand against well-established thermodynamics. The pair of you continually mention Newton’s laws, suggesting to the non-technical that you already have such a proof. I claim that this is dishonest and manipulative, hence my demand that you show your proof or admit your dishonesty.

          • Nikko

            Clark, is there no limit to the waffle you can produce? For the umpteenth time, discussion is not about the initiation of the collapse but about its progression.

            Also for the umpteenth time, my position is that gravity only collapse into own footprint at 64% of freefall is not possible. You claim that thermodynamics says that it is possible – this must be a branch of thermo not widely known so can you please enlighten us lesser mortals.

            Me and John Goss do frequently mention the laws of motion because they tell us that your theory cannot be true. There is nothing dishonest or manipulative about that. If thermodynamics theory says the opposite, well here is your chance to make a name for yourself and prove Newton wrong!

            It is your theory so the onus of proof is on you. I wrote above how you can do it. This is what you wrote recently, so take your own advice or stop ramming your idiotic theory down people’s throat

            Clark June 6, 2017 @13.12
            Present the proof you claim to have, or retract. That is how it is done in the scientific community. If you do neither, your claim to speak with scientific authority is fraudulent.

          • Clark

            “Me and John Goss do frequently mention the laws of motion because they tell us that your theory cannot be true. There is nothing dishonest or manipulative about that. If thermodynamics theory says the opposite, well here is your chance to make a name for yourself and prove Newton wrong!”

            Cite the relevant Newtonian inequality or admit that you are lying.

          • Nikko

            Easy – law of conservation of momentum together with the equations of motion. Assuming that the falling upper most section was 20 times the mass of the floor slab below and that 10% of the mass of the impacted floors was pulverized, the collapse time would be at least 21 seconds. And that is in the absolutely ideal case of zero resistance at each impact point. The observed collapse time was much less than 21 seconds so that is how we know that you are talking complete bollocks.

            Clark, if you can’t stop being an idiot at least stop going on about your theory.

            Clark June 6, 2017 @13.12
            Present the proof you claim to have, or retract. That is how it is done in the scientific community. If you do neither, your claim to speak with scientific authority is fraudulent.

          • Clark

            Ah, so these are your own figures. Fair enough.

            I think the total collapse time is not known due to obscuration by dust. Also, a reduction needs to be made to account for the height of the rubble, but leave that for now. At least you’ve blown Wood out of the water; you shouldn’t have bothered defending BBE. Further, pulverisation is a vague term, as we end up with a distribution of particle sizes. And “10% pulverisation” is your arbitrary choice, obviously. You’re also confirming that rapid collapse is indeed possible.

            Firstly, I think you should specify your calculations. Are you subtracting energy of pulverisation, or subtracting pulverised mass from the accumulating mass, or both? Etc.

            But the arbitrary choice of 10% seems more significant. I’ll assume you’re back on the spreadsheet software. What you should do is run various scenarios for varying degrees of pulverisation from none to 10%, and produce a table.

            Insults ignored 🙂

          • Clark

            Some time ago I tried timing the internal collapse of WTC1. It’s difficult to know when to stop the clock, because pieces of falling perimeter trailing dust overtake the internal collapse and obscure it. I think I estimated about 16 seconds.

          • Clark

            Nikko, just think for a moment. If the Towers could indeed collapse without explosives in 21 seconds, what the hell would be the point in lacing them with copious explosives on every floor, with all the consequent risk of detection, just to get them to collapse a few seconds quicker?

          • John Goss

            “Clark, is there no limit to the waffle you can produce?”

            NB. This is not a response to Clark so I hope he wil not see it as one and therefore refrain.

            Nikko, the answer to waffle is to ignore it. I read it and it annoys me but I have made a concerted effort not to respond. Clark ignores most things other people say. Ignore him.

          • Nikko

            John, I think I will take your advice. There is only so much waffle one can take! And now he is distorting what people say.

          • Clark

            John and Nikko, you are in disagreement with each other. John says that the top-down collapses of the Twin Towers defied Newtonian physics unless explosives were used. Nikko has used Newton’s laws to calculate that such collapses could only happen faster than 21 seconds if pulverisation was less than 10%.

            Yes, I suggest you both go into denial. Stick your fingers in your ears and pretend not to hear. That always fixes everything; just ask Theresa May.

        • Clark

          If you want to see something inexplicable, look at WTC7’s collapse; that was fucking weird. But stop pretending that the Twin Towers did anything odd for the damage they were subjected to.

          Every structure has to have a mode of failure. Ideas that the Twin Towers’ top sections might have slid off to one side are unrealistic. You propose no mode of failure for the circumstances, so you propose indestructible buildings. That’s not engineering.

  • glenn_uk

    OMG!! Paul is suddenly proven correct about the con-trail/ dodgy looking clouds… look at this:

    https://forum.motorcyclenews.com/uploads/files/upload-182cd4f8-aebf-4ea1-80b0-8724fc045a5c.jpg

    What more proof does one need? The PTB are obviously showing us that Brexit was a plot, because they are _making_ us totally isolated, right up there alone in the sky. Perhaps “sky” is the operative word… Murdoch must be behind it.

    *

    These con-trail boys are doing a pretty crap job, don’t you think? We’re heading on for 8 billion people, and that “agenda-21” conspiracy – the non-binding, entirely voluntary, sustainability plan for development – was rumbled all the way back in 1992. Since then, we’ve about doubled the population. This mass kill-off doesn’t appear to be going so well, unless maths ain’t what it used to be.

    • Paul Barbara

      @ glenn_uk June 16, 2017 at 02:26
      In two ways you have inadvertently scored an own goal; 1. By leaving out Northern Ireland, whoever photo shopped the pic will have enraged the DUP, who will now refuse to join a coalition with May, and 2. the (un-photo shopped curve on the right strongly indicates the plane is not on a commercial run; planes fly by the shortest route between point A and point B (except in holding patterns, not done at that height), for obvious fuel efficiency, or if diverted. As no other chemtrail is so diverted, it is highly unlikely.
      But this manoever, approx. 120* curve, is often seen in the sky, and I have sometimes seen virtually 90%.
      But that wouldn’t appear to be odd to you.
      Re depopulation, we shall see. Here is a verbatim ( except for the two **) report of what a lady heard G. H. W. Bush say, from her book ‘Access Denied – For Reasons Of National Security’: ‘According to New World Order plans being discussed at the Grove, plans for reducing the earth’s population was a high priority. Mass genocide of so-called ”undesirables” through the proliferation of AIDS was high on Bush’s agenda. ”We’ll annihilate the ni**ers at their source, beginning in South and East Africa and Haiti.” Having heard Bush say those words is by far one of the most torturous things I ever endured. Equally as torturous to my being were the discussions on genetic engineering, human cloning, and depletion of earth’s natural resources for profit. Cheney remarked that no one would be able to think to stop technology’s plan. ”I’ll destroy the planet first,” Bush had vowed.’ ‘
      I don’t expect you to believe it; I’m sure you won’t check the book out.
      Remember the people are said to have scoffed at Noah, and even worse befell Galileo and Bruno.

      • Clark

        “un-photo shopped curve on the right strongly indicates the plane is not on a commercial run”

        Fuck! A plane altered course! Quick, disband the UN!

      • Clark

        I live under one of the Stansted airport departure paths and, on alternate weeks, the start of the Heathrow airport approach path. Aircraft arrive from all directions to make their turn onto the final straight run to Heathrow. When sunbathing up by the badgers’ sets it can be entertaining to watch them assembling into neatly spaced points on the line; there’s something strangely reassuring about how orderly it is. From Stansted they climb and turn, some heading off south while others continue turning to pass almost directly overhead.

        It is very, very normal to see curved trails.

        I think there’s far too much air travel. The richer and smaller a minority we consider, the more damage it does to the environment that all must share; the affluent’s level of air travel could never be generalised to the global population as a whole without wrecking everyone’s environment, even considering just the noise.

        What we need is a change in the dominant ideology. People need time and freedom so they can travel and explore at a pace appropriate for appreciation, instead of being flogged like racehorses to burn their lives away in work for the frantic economic race to destruction. It must be possible because living standards are better than ever before, yet both unemployment and unnecessary consumption are rife the world over.

        But the conspiracy theory distracts from the destructive ideology by offering a scapegoat instead. If aircraft would just stop spraying poison for the government, everything would be OK. It’s not that a majority aspire to a pointless frantic affluence doomed to crash billions into misery, it’s that a handful of secret nutters are plotting to kill us all.

        Propaganda works primarily by omission. The “chemtrail” theory accuses only governments. I’m far more paranoid than your typical conspiracy theorist; their scepticism stops with the government; mine is recursive. Did someone demolish Building 7 just to make people think that the Twin Towers were pre-rigged? Who’s seeding this stuff? Que bono?

        • Paul Barbara

          @ Clark June 16, 2017 at 15:26
          Most jet passenger aircraft fly at 30,000 – 40,000 feet; above 30,000 feet it is quite common for contrails to form. These planes also typically fly at about 600MPH. Granted they slow down as they approach their destination airport, it would take little over six minutes for a such a plane to travel the 60-odd miles from Stansted to Heathrow. I can assure you that planes are well below their cruising height over ten minutes before landing.
          So other than in extremely unusual circumstances will an airliner make contrails under 30,000 feet, which ten minutes before landing they will all be.
          Are you telling me you have seen planes coming into Stansted leaving persistant trails? Or planes getting in line for Heathrow (60 miles away) or Gatwick (70 miles away) leaving these trails we are discussing?
          Yes, it is quite frequent to see trails high up, doing 120* or a lot less often close to 90*, but not when they are at the low altitudes these planes would be at.

          • Clark

            Sometimes planes don’t leave trails, sometimes they do, and sometimes those trails persist. I don’t remember a load of trails pointing at Heathrow, but then I’m not obsessive about what they’re up to up there. There’s a lot of air traffic and curved trails are not unusual.

            Sometimes I watch passing aircraft through binoculars, and quite often there is a gap (or sometimes a less dense section) behind the aircraft before the trail (fully) condenses. It’s rather magnificent and fascinating to watch, and it pretty much proves it’s a condensation process rather than metal particulates being sprayed.

            You know wind turbines sometimes produce vapour trails from the tips of their rotors, right? My friend Steve who sails from Benfleet say there’s fog in the estuary more often as a result.

    • Paul Barbara

      @ glenn_uk June 16, 2017 at 02:26
      Yeh, either ‘..maths ain’t what it used to be’ or you bandy figures around as your belly guides you.:
      ‘Total Population of the World by Decade, 1950–2050
      (historical and projected)

      Year Total world population
      (mid-year figures) Ten-year growth
      rate (%)
      1950 2,556,000,053 18.9%
      1960 3,039,451,023 22.0
      1970 3,706,618,163 20.2
      1980 4,453,831,714 18.5
      1990 5,278,639,789 15.2
      2000 6,082,966,429 12.6
      2010* 6,848,932,929 10.7
      2020* 7,584,821,144 8.7
      2030* 8,246,619,341 7.3
      2040* 8,850,045,889 5.6
      2050* 9,346,399,468 —
      *. Projected. (The projection is very close to actual 2017 figures)
      Source: U.S. Census Bureau, International Database.
      Total Population of the World by Decade, 1950–2050 – Infoplease
      https://www.infoplease.com/world/population-statistics/total-population-world-decade-1950-2050

      2017 7,515,284,153
      World Population Clock: 7.5 Billion People (2017) – Worldometers
      http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/

      So the population is not expected to double from 1992 even by 2050 (and that’s not taking account of wars, pandemics and famines to be ‘arranged’). And note that the decade increase has decreased every decade since 1960.

        • Paul Barbara

          @ Clark June 16, 2017 at 15:36
          ‘…It’s as bad as trying to reason with customer services….’
          I don’t seem to have probs with customer services (except trying to talk to someone by phone, with option after option to press); maybe it’s your attitude? Penny drop time!

          It’s well known that most Third World countries have the highest birthrates, but this is because they also have a high death rate of their offspring, and as they don’t have welfare systems they need to have children to support them when they get old or incapacitated. It is also a result of the fact that just about all Third World countries have been ripped off and their resources extracted (if they have been lucky enough not to have been colonised by rapacious, merciless thugs from countries like Britain).

          • Clark

            Oh, so you’re nice and compliant with the corporate systems, are you? You presumably haven’t noticed that although you’re talking to a live human, it’s actually an algorithm that you’re navigating. The poor bastards in the call centres are slaves to the screens; they’re not allowed to reason, make judgements or exercise human conscience. In fact, I complained to Tesco because the tills on their fuel payment desks actually displayed “Slave 1”, “Slave 2” and “Slave 3” as the names of the operatives!

            Grief, Paul. The oppression and contempt are perpetrated closer than under our noses; we’re in it right up to our necks, most of us do it as our day jobs, yet you consign all the evil to some distant and unidentified “Illuminati”.

          • Clark

            I think that falling birthrate most closely correlates with women’s literacy and women’s freedom to access contraception. The right wing who seed your favourite conspiracy theories are pretty unsupportive of both.

          • Clark

            Paul, you seem to have accepted our crazy modern way of life as normal, and so consigned all the evil inherent in it out to some unreachable playground of the elite. There’s nothing normal about airliners, skyscrapers and motorways, no more than there is about nuclear weapons. There’s nothing normal about the human population tripling in just over half a lifetime.

            Please, please watch Koyaanisqatsi until the insanity becomes apparent to you:

            https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Koyaanisqatsi&page=&utm_source=opensearch

          • Paul Barbara

            @ Clark June 16, 2017 at 17:02
            ‘I think that falling birthrate most closely correlates with women’s literacy and women’s freedom to access contraception. The right wing who seed your favourite conspiracy theories are pretty unsupportive of both.’
            Sure, the PTB aren’t interested in supporting proper education, but rather in ‘dumbing down’ the populations.
            But they do support contraception and sterilization, at least for the Third World countries, to the extent of concealing long-term contraception chemicals in vaccines ostensibly for diseases. Even the WHO has been complicit in this.

          • Paul Barbara

            @ Clark June 17, 2017 at 11:26
            Tell you what, let’s make a deal – I’ll watch ‘Koyaanisqatsi’ if you agree to watch the 9/11 documentary ‘Zero’ all the way through.

          • Clark

            Darken the room, silence the ‘phones, gather your refreshments. There are no arguments to be analysed, no facts to be checked, no dialogue at all.

            Oh Mother Earth, what have we done?

      • Clark

        Deputy Chief Vincent Dunn (retired), immediately before Gregory Gargiso, also has much to say regarding steel versus concrete under conditions of fire, and how building design has developed over the decades.

  • Paul Barbara

    @ Clark June 17, 2017 at 12:21
    ‘I’ll watch Zero. It’s not a fair deal, but you won’t know that until you watch Koyaanisqatsi.’
    Bloomin well right, it’s not a fair deal! I’d never have suggested it if I’d taken a look at it first.
    I’m half way through it; I hope the rest lightens up a bit; so far it was unmitigated brain damage. But a deal’s a deal, so I’ll struggle through.

    • Clark

      So you find Zero “lighter” than Koyaanisqatsi. That’s worrying. It suggests 9/11 to you is somehow entertainment.

      Indeed, Koyaanisqatsi is “heavy” in a way, but then the current predicament of humanity is very serious.

      Or at least, it’s serious to us humans. As best our sciences have revealed so far, reality has been diversifying for between ten and twenty billion years. Whatever drives this creative process will presumably just carry on whether us humans prove ourselves worthy of the ride, or merely self-destructive. We’d “better start doing it right” (Dance on a Volcano, Genesis).
      – – –
      I was already about half way through Zero. I’ve been dipping into it from time to time for months. It makes a lot of assertions of varying degrees of veracity. Some I already knew to be true, or false. Some would take considerable time to check. I intend to write a summary eventually.

    • Clark

      “…unmitigated brain damage”

      Just so. But it is merely a visual record of “ordinary” modern human activity, set to rather spiritual or religious music.

      • Paul Barbara

        @ Clark June 19, 2017 at 10:09
        But I am fully aware of how crazy modern society is already, without mindless repetition. But who planned it, ‘We The People’ or the Banksters and either their puppet politicians, MSM or Military Juntas?
        Obviously I must hold full judgement till I finish watching it.
        I certainly don’t regard ‘Zero’ as entertainment, but as one of the best 9/11 documentaries.

        • Paul Barbara

          I should have included the churches, particularly Roman Catholic, who are also part of the ‘Illuminati’, and the ‘Robber Barons’.

        • Clark

          No one planned it. That’s the problem.

          Sure, people make lesser plans, many of them effectively evil. But there’s no overall plan. How could there be, in a universe that supports free will?

  • Paul Barbara

    Especially for those who think human culling and artificially-created pandemics are fantasises of ‘conspiracy theorists’:
    ‘How To Kill a Whole Lot of People: Scripps Scientists Publish How They Made H7N9 Virus More Transmissible’:
    http://www.activistpost.com/2017/06/scripps-scientists-publish-h7n9-virus.html?

    ‘It’s not your dog or Lyme vaccine you should worry about. Lyme disease infects humans but rarely do doctors recognize the symptoms of this war-weapon developed to be spread by ticks. If you have a pet, you’re at risk…’:
    http://www.thedogpress.com/editorials/Plum-island-LymeDisease_Andrews1.asp

    ‘…The nefarious history of Plum Island began after World War II when Erich Traub, a German biological warfare expert joined the team. Our government learned of the German penchant for bio-weapons technology through defectors. Significantly, Traub had operated a germ warfare lab on an island in the Baltic Sea.

    Either the U.S. Army knew nothing about migratory patterns or, as is more logical, Army researchers knew exactly what they were doing. Plum Island is on the Atlantic flyway that runs from the Florida coast up the eastern seaboard to Greenland. A million birds rest on the island before flying on to the Connecticut River estuaries in Lyme, CT. It is possible but doubtful that the Army also overlooked the fact that deer regularly swim between the island and the mainland. In fact, Plum Island researchers believe the deer and birds were recognized as vehicles for distributive testing.

    Thus Plum Island’s biological research ramped up with or without regard for the collateral damage that followed. Yankee Magazine, under the Freedom of Information Act, revealed Plum Island’s work included “virus outbreaks, biological meltdowns, infected workers, contaminated raw waste flushed into the Sound … and experimental tick colonies, bred for research on vector-borne diseases.”

    Whether or not infected ticks were deliberately released into surrounding communities is pure speculation but most certainly, genetically engineered vector ticks from Plum Island infected the human population….’

    Hmmm, Jerries again, like ‘Dr.’ Mengele (renamed Dr. Green) was imported to beef up the CIA’s MK-ULTRA mind-control program, including kidnapping kids and toruring them, sometimes to death. Operation Paperclip was OK’d by Congress, as it was sold as a ‘Rocket Engineer’ import system, but gross War Criminals of the worst kind where also imported under it’s auspices.

    I have relatives in Connecticut, and I know they do not let their cats outside due to fear of them bringing ticks into the house. And as the article above claims, they have every reason to fear infection.

    • Clark

      I agree that there should be complete openness and accountability about scientific research. I’ve argued this since the 1980s when Thatcher said that research should move away from universities and more into the private sector.

      But the examples of Lyme disease and H7N9 say nothing about the existence or otherwise of a human culling programme. Lyme disease is horrible, but infecting 0.005% of the population per year, non-fatal and treatable by antibiotics, it seem spectacularly useless as a culling implement.

      Regarding H7N9, are you saying that research into its transmission should not be done?

      • Paul Barbara

        @ Clark June 19, 2017 at 12:47
        ‘…Lyme disease is horrible, but infecting 0.005% of the population per year, non-fatal and treatable by antibiotics, it seem spectacularly useless as a culling implement….’
        This was just the experimental phase….
        ‘…Regarding H7N9, are you saying that research into its transmission should not be done?…’
        Yes. Unlike you, I do not trust the ‘PTB’ further than anyone could throw them. They are, point blank, evil SOB’s.

      • Clark

        1) So how much of the academic community do you consider the “Powers That Be”?

        2) What other research would you have stopped?

        I suppose if you’re a creationist, you might not accept that viruses evolve of their own accord. Which would mean that all the virologists and biologists who say otherwise must be liars.

  • Clark

    Attention Twin Tower demolition theorists:

    Nikko has performed Newtonian calculations showing that the Twin Towers collapses could have had a duration of around 21 seconds, without explosives, assuming “10% pulverisation” as each floor assembly was entrained.

    It seems that the possibility of rapid collapse has been established. I’m hoping that Nikko will produce a table of collapse times corresponding to various degrees of pulverisation.

    • Nikko

      Clark is putting words in my mouth. What I said, which can be checked by clicking on the link, is that under ideal conditions of zero resistance at each impact point and assuming 10% pulverisation, the collapse time would be 21 seconds. But ideal conditions of zero resistance only exist in Clark’s warped mind so in the real world the collapse time would be significantly longer. In reality, the observed time was a fraction of the 21 seconds, so excluding gravity as the sole driving force of the collapse.

      • Clark

        Come on Nikko, a bit of honesty here, please. The collapse time would be quicker with less pulverisation, would it not? For comparison, what figure do you get for zero pulverisation during the collapse?

        You stated that the 21 seconds includes consideration of conservation of momentum. Since the collisions considered are inelastic, expenditure of kinetic energy into deformation is inevitable, and already accounted for. Taking the most conservative case of no pulverisation, what TNT equivalent does this work out at?

        • Clark

          And Nikko, you seem to be saying that The Conspiracy went to all the trouble of pre-rigging at least dozens of explosive charges on every floor of the Twin Towers, with all the risks of discovery and premature detonation that would entail, just to make them fall a little bit faster. That would seem very odd behaviour, would it not?

  • John Goss

    If this page does not click over Clark has made 80 comments so far invoking my name 24 times without any response from me. When I met him he seemed all right but that was a few years ago on a demonstration. I share none of his nonsense and my advice to everyone is to ignore what ever irritates. If you scratch it it only gets worse.

    • Clark

      John, I have asked and asked you to engage in technical discussions. Instead, and apparently to avoid doing so, you have maligned my abilities and insulted me repeatedly, accusing me of anti-science. Throughout, you have posted dishonestly, making claims contradicted by evidence that I have linked to. Now Nikko has calculated that the Twin Towers could indeed collapse rapidly, and you are reduced, hypocritically, to policing my tone.

      Your claim that Newtonian mechanics rules out top-down collapses of the Twin Towers is essentially dishonest, and an abuse of Newton’s name and work.

      Please raise your game, because all are needed in the struggle against injustice.

      TRUTH, Justice, Peace.

      • Paul Barbara

        @ Clark June 19, 2017 at 22:06
        We are shortly approaching August, when a fully technically argued assessment of WTC 7 will be propounded.
        Are you going to beat Mick West to the debunking?

        • Clark

          Not particularly. I don’t know what happened to Building 7. It was very odd, whatever.

          Really, I need to redo the sort of measurements Chandler did. Chandler’s raw data suggests the collapse briefly exceeded the free-fall rate. I’ve read that A&E9/11″Truth” quote various figures, but mainly 9.1m/s^2.

          But as I’ve said, I think it’s at least possible that a military demolition team were sent in after the Towers fell, and it was classified. I suspect this because the fire-fighters may have been on the verge of mutiny, refusing to accept the exclusion zone, wanting to search for their lost comrades.

          I’m pretty certain that the WTC7 physical trail has gone too cold, too much evidence has been destroyed, lost or scrambled, and the best place to look now is in the various insurance court case records.

          The problem with the Alaskan technical assessment is that we can no longer tell the actual physical state of the building before collapse. It’s all very well having the construction documents, but you can’t prove that the actual building fully conformed to them.

        • Clark

          Is Mick West the moderator at Metabunk? He seems fair. Check the Twin Tower collapse rate thread; Tony Szamboti got to say what he wanted, and some of the engineers agreed with some of it. One can disagree with Bazant and still support gravity collapse.

        • Clark

          Check out femr2 and ucoz (spelling?); you can find their stuff on YouTube. Both do physics and simulation, both did a lot of observation and measurement. femr2 strongly disagrees with NIST and is highly critical, but still supports gravity collapse.

  • Tony_0pmoc

    Clark,

    I very rarely even look at this thread. I agree with you about contrails, and I really like Dead Can Dance, but watching and even promtoing others to watch Koyaanisqatsi is extremely unhealthy from the little I have seen of it, I am not suggesting its contents are not true, but anyone can make a film about almost any subject – even The Hopi to promote either a highly depressing mental image, or a highly uplifting one.

    I have to admit, 40 years ago, when I was feeling very sad and lonely, I used to like listening to the very worst of Leonard Cohen. He was obviously feeling so bad, it made me feel better. I even used to like Nosferatu and particularly Hugh Cornwell (Stranglers) album of the same name – and The Residents – I’ve even seem them perform live.

    Try Zeitgeist instead – that’s pretty depressing too, but not quite as bad Koyaanisqatsi

    Whilst you may be correct. merely using the concept of extrapolation, that things could well get considerably worse, extrapolation is a very dangerous concept to predict the future. The entire concept of linerarity is extremely flawed. The real world is not like that. Things do change in completely unpredicatble ways, and sometimes those changes can be incredibly positive. Truth and Justice may yet return within our lifetimes.

    Take Care.

    Tony

    • Clark

      Koyaanisqatsi is a work of art and of genius. Art is often meant to be challenging.

      Tonight, as every night, millions will be watching (simulated) extreme violence as entertainment, and this is regarded as entirely normal; not unhealthy in the slightest. Maybe 24 will be showing, advocating torture. Your mental health warnings would be more appropriate for those.

      If Koyaanisqatsi gets a bit much, I recommend listening to the music.

    • Clark

      Tony, isn’t this precisely the problem? As a species, we’re not facing up to reality. We prefer to believe that there are solutions that don’t require widespread personal change. SEP or “Someone Else’s Problem”, as Douglas Adams put it. The See Also list on the following page looks strangely appropriate:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somebody_else%27s_problem

      I had already watched some of Zeitgeist. It seems to impart a sort of “conspiracy theory” message; that some shadowy group has been plotting and scheming behind the scenes for centuries, and if only this were revealed everything would suddenly be OK, as if by magic.

      Of course plotting and scheming behind the scenes certainly does go on, but is that the disease or just a symptom? I’d certainly dispute the Zeitgeist suggestion of continuity, which implies that the group must have passed down its overall plan from older masters to younger recruits as the generations passed, successfully keeping the vital information secret, and that they’ve been highly successful in making the world just like it is now.

      The Koyaanisqatsi message is rather different; that as millions of humans has grown to billions, just going about our lives and doing what we do, cumulatively learning how to be collectively more effective at changing our environment, we have created massive problems for ourselves that we didn’t anticipate.

      Collectively, our cleverness has outstripped our wisdom.

      Isn’t this the real story of 9/11 that we’d rather not face? Undoubtedly there was secret plotting, but all the elements of the disaster have become entirely mundane – domestic air transport, huge buildings, covert foreign policy, unholy alliances, government secrecy, public relations, propaganda – every one of these elements is “perfectly normal”, they all go on 24/7 and hardly anyone bats an eyelid, just like all the crowds in Koyaanisqatsi, just getting on with it without a thought for potential consequences of the growing insanity in which we’re all participating.

      Mental health is the ongoing process of dedication to reality at all costs

      M Scott Peck.

      • Tony_0pmoc

        Clark,

        I agree with most of that, and I really am not a great fan of any one historical group, being in control of anything. However, power, money, culture and intelligence is quite obviously passed on from generation to generation, sometimes over hundreds of years (maybe thousands) until some reset natural or otherwise happens resulting in an Empire’s collapse.

        It doesn’t really matter who was responsibile for 9/11 and arguing about it is highly counter-productive. I am almost certain that a group of exceedingly evil humans were responsible for it. As regards whatevever philosophy unites them to commit such evil (and it may simply be psychopathy) is not of such great importance. What is important, is that the criminals responsible are brought to trial in a court of law. Do you honestly think they have been?

        Anyhow, I really enjoyed this really long video, made by a Yorkshire History Teacher. He doesn’t actually castigate the usual suspects..just does a long detailed analysis of all major events over his lifetime.

        “JFK to 911 Everything Is A Rich Man’s Trick”

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1Qt6a-vaNM

        Tony

      • Clark

        Tony, no; I think no one has been properly prosecuted for 9/11.

        I’m not certain it was all one group, though. There was obviously widespread foreknowledge, though apparently partial. For instance, it looks like some of the Bush administration knew things the CIA didn’t, and the FBI knew some other things that neither of the former knew. Secret services of various countries volunteered partial information, and the US authorities pretended not to have heard. Etc.

        I’ve said it before; 9/11 looks like a sort of bandwagon effect, or like covert crowdsourcing. Like some group heard “X is going to do Y” and they thought “hey, that means we could get away with Z”…

        I get annoyed with conspiracy theory development partly because they take such a monolithic approach. Every little anomaly (real or imagined) gets roped into The One Big Conspiracy. It takes over, and narrows and channels thought. The Twin-Tower-collapses-were-impossible dogma is particularly effective at this; those who accept it seem to stop wondering and take to merely collecting anomalies. It’s all just “lesser doubt”:

        Alex Jones and Great Doubt –

        http://hardcorezen.info/alex-jones-and-great-doubt/5433

        • Clark

          “it looks like some of the Bush administration knew things the CIA didn’t, and the FBI knew some other things that neither of the former knew”

          You have to factor in how secretive psychopaths are. This argues against the Monolithic Conspiracy, because such fuckers would never tell each other exactly what they were up to. The idea that there’s some elite One Big Club just doesn’t make sense; no one gets that high up without serious paranoia to protect them from all the others.

    • Paul Barbara

      @ Tony_0pmoc June 19, 2017 at 21:29
      So you think chemtrails are figments of ‘Tin-foil-hatted’ loons? No prob, but just make a habit of ‘Looking Up’, seeing what is going on; wonder why the jet stream has suddenly become so ‘unusual’, figure out why our traditional weather, famous for unpredictability, has suddenly gone haywire, alongside everywhere else, especially the Arctic?
      Have you, by any chance, bought rose-coloured specs from glenn_uk?

      • glenn_uk

        WTF, Paul? “Rose-coloured specs” – when did I suddenly become Pollyanna?

        The Jet Stream might have become a bit unstable due to global warming, or perhaps you think _that_ is simply BS, yet another lie to kill off 7 billion people as part of the Agenda-21 blah blah blah.

        I’ve yet to see anything even passingly convincing about chem-trails, but please refer me to anything particularly solid you might have on it. And I’m not talking about some buggery-awful 3-hour you-tube video either. Everything I’ve encountered so far has frankly been an insult to the intelligence. You follow half a dozen sub-references to find that somebody said that it might be possible to put something in jet fuel to do something, maybe. And that’s it.

        A bit like a dull speech from Bush-I in 1992 about a “New World Order”, and every half-wit thinks “OMG!! He’s let the cat out of the bag, we’ve got them now!”. As if. FFS.

        Sorry for sounding so jaundiced on the subject, but the amount of over-excitable timewasters screeching that they’ve got The Truth, they have all The Evidence, and I – personally – must be either in on it, or utterly blind and stupid, not to agree… and you look at the utter BS and half-truth and internally self-referenced crap which this “Truth” consists of often enough, and it’s hard not to become rather irritated at the sheer stupidity of it all.

        Over to you. Give me evidence, not half-arsed, regurgitated assertions. Please. How about something you actually have studied and know about in depth yourself, instead of just “Look at this! Look at this!” – when it turns out to be nothing but another fanatic repeating your gospel.

      • Clark

        Yes, chemtrail theory is a useful scapegoat which distracts good people from the real problem of climate change. Que bono? Such a theory is convenient to the corporate system.

        It’s “rose coloured specs” to accept chemtrail theory; when the economic system crashes as it eventually must, the aircraft will stop flying so the “spraying” will stop. But in fact it’s global climate change, and that’s a far worse problem because the CO2 is already in the atmosphere.

  • Tony_0pmoc

    Clark, Our understanding of events develops over our lifetime, and how we react to such events, can be extremely traumatic. Even now, someone can start to tell me something that they believe to be true, and exceedingly evil, and I just have to say to them, please stop, do not tell me any more. I do not believe it (even though it maybe true). Then sometime later, maybe months later, I may research and investigate (what they may or may not already have done), and I may or may not come to the same conclusions.

    I used a lot of may’s there, but thought Jeremy Corbyn’s speech today was excellent.

    I know you are vulnerable, but so are we all – even the toughest, most professional, if they are normal people with empathy and compassion, as the vast majority of us are.

    On a brighter note, my girlfriend and I got engaged at The Summer Sostice at Stonehenge 35 years ago today. She’s just had her hair done – took 3 hours whilst I was looking after our Grandson. I laughed when she walked in…The hairdresser did a good job – but bloody hell. I said you look like a Barbie Doll.

    Tony

    • Clark

      ’82 might have been the first year I went to the Stonehenge free festival; damned if I can remember. I kept going until Thatcher crushed it.

    • Clark

      I remember one year it was the free food festival. Camps would have a fire and a big pot, and anyone could just sit down and eat with them.

      You could get anything done at Stonehenge. You could get your clutch replaced or get your telly fixed.

      I think in ’84 the actual moment of solstice must have been between 00:00 and 01:00. All the core festival people must have had their watches on GMT, because I had my watch but whoever I asked the time replied as if it was one hour earlier. This made the Tuesday the Solstice Day by physical reckoning, but the Wednesday for anyone who took 00:00 BST to be midnight (though I might have the days wrong). A load of us went into the stones on Tuesday, and these very nice coppers turned up, trained negotiators I think, and persuaded everyone they could to leave, saying they could come back the next day, which, indeed, they permitted.

      The coppers weren’t nice the next year, though, and there were more than just coppers, too. Smashed the Convoy vehicles, detained all the men and left the women and kids to cope in their smashed homes.

      • Paul Barbara

        @ Clark June 22, 2017 at 00:27
        And I vonder vot ghastly sacrifices these ‘Stones’ have seen? Yippe-i-aye, yippe-i-oh; Old Time Religion was itsee-bitsee bloodthirsty – but, heck, whats’s new?

        • Clark

          Gawd knows. I think the stones have rather a long history. There are a load of barrows, too.

          You’d get the Druids there, but they seemed to have little connection to the New Age Travellers. I think the stones are really about the Winter solstice in any case.

          The festival was based around The Convoy, the extended Hawkwind people, The Tibetans’ Tent circus performers, and various motorcycle clubs, some of which were Angels.

        • Clark

          I thought it was the “free festival” because you didn’t have to pay to get in. Only later I realised it was free as in freedom. There was no organisational structure and no rules. It was spontaneous.

  • Hieroglyph

    So, it is with interest I note that Grenfell towers is still standing, a burnt out husk, but visible on the London skyline.

    Much of the 9-11 discussion seems to revolve around the seeming appearance of a demolition. Even those who don’t believe it’s a demolition admit, it does look like one. I accept appearances can be deceptive. However, in real time, we see a building in London, still standing, after being demolished by fire; standing almost symbolically, and I’m not prone to symbolism. Is this relevant to the discussion?

    The discussion about demolition gets to structural engineering, so complex I swear I saw an argument about Plank’s Constant! A little over my head. I’ve never followed the 9-11 stuff that much, on the grounds that the official explanation is quite evidently utter baloney, so in a way it doesn’t entirely matter whether it was a demolition, or Saudi-sponsored pilots. For the record, I think the deep state can plan such a crime. Some people argue that such things couldn’t be covered up, but I think this line of thinking is basically ridiculous – the spooks cover shit up, all the time, and probably much worse than 9-11. However, a controlled demolition I’ve always put down as ‘extremely unlikely’, to say the least. Should we now reconsider, in light of the recent tragedy?

    Naturally, 9-11 was a tremendous explosion, caused by 2 planes and a shit load of fuel. So perhaps this exceeded tolerance? One could argue these are different scenarios.

    • glenn_uk

      Hieroglyph: All interesting thoughts. There are a substantial number of steel-framed buildings which have survived major fires without spontaneously falling apart, in fact not a single case of fire and damage has caused the collapse of such a structure prior to 9/11. But the Twin Towers do have the distinction of having quite significant damage, besides the fire. Building 7 did not.

      All the same, I’ve evolved somewhat from accepting the narrative, to being pretty well convinced this was a demolition, to now being more agnostic about it.

      At the same time, we have to weigh in the utter implausibility of the Pentagon attack being as claimed. Not to mention the Pennsylvania crash being as the Official Story tells it.

      You might have to allow for the buildings collapsing unexpectedly, even if the events of that day were allowed to happen. Not everything might have gone entirely to plan. Either the terrorists did everything absolutely perfectly, or devious agents within our own government did everything perfectly – does that sound like a reasonable either/or to you? It certainly does not sounds like one to me.

    • Clark

      Grenfell Tower had a lot more concrete, which is more resilient to heat; see my comments following from the one linked below, and the link I included there:

      https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-112/#comment-688173

      The Twin Tower collapses certainly resembled vérinage demolition; indeed, the initiation process was rather similar:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwFHEoiUZ7o

      There’d be no point lacing the Twin Towers with explosives on every floor as certain “controlled demolition” theories require because they could collapse very quickly without such assistance, see here:

      https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-112/#comment-688360

    • Clark

      I think it’s true to say that the design of the Twin Towers was particularly vulnerable to the specific sort of damage they suffered, and the way they collapsed was consistent with both the design and the damage.

      The wide-span floors on lightweight steel trusses were vulnerable to chain-reaction collapse if enough material fell on the top of the stack, and that’s exactly what happened.

    • John Goss

      “So, it is with interest I note that Grenfell towers is still standing, a burnt out husk, but visible on the London skyline.”

      Very observant. This week a crane fell in Crewe sadly killing two people.

      http://www.euronews.com/2017/06/22/two-dead-after-crane-collapse-in-crewe

      Cranes have to be made of structural steel, or some material with similar properties and strengths, to lift weights even greater than their own. There are people on this thread who dishonestly direct you towards the fire resistance of concrete as opposed to steel. While it is true that concrete is more fire-resistant it is not as strong as steel or they would be building skyscrapers from reinforced concrete. It is a single fact that no steel-structured building has ever collapsed due to fire. Never. Never ever.

      I put a video link in this blog-piece which shows the demolition of a steel-framed building and if you stop the video at the end you can see what remains of the structure. It is like the collapsed crane. Welded and bolted structures do not vanish into thin air.

      https://johnplatinumgoss.wordpress.com/2017/04/22/structural-steel-and-911/

      This post is commandeered by one person. Any comment of mine which suggests a link between between Israel and 9/11 is deleted. You might be able to work something out from that.

      • Clark

        “It is a single fact that no steel-structured building has ever collapsed due to fire. Never. Never ever”

        FALSE

        John Goss, check your facts, and post the correction if you have a shred of honesty. I don’t see why I should repeatedly correct you.

        • John Goss

          I will respond to you on this occasion because you are probably going to mention Crystal Palace which was very badly designed and did not have any structure above it. It was also a bottom up blaze like Grenfell.

          • John Goss

            Also there was no structure below it and it burnt for a long time before collapsing many decades ago when structural steel buildings were, relatively speaking, in their infancy.

          • John Goss

            I do not want to engage you because you talk nonsense. You have no engineering background and prertend to have some scientific knowledge which the rest of us cannot take seriously. But with the same old garbage you spout on and on and on . . . You are so boring the meercats can’t take an interest. Leave me and my comments alone.

          • Clark

            There are various others, too.

            “Never. Never ever”

            If you want me to comment less, BE FACTUAL, because it’s TRUTH, Justice, Peace.

            “While it is true that concrete is more fire-resistant it is not as strong as steel or they would be building skyscrapers from reinforced concrete”

            One World Trade Center is the replacement for the Twin Towers, incorporating the design improvements recommended by NIST to prevent a similar catastrophe:

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_world_trade_center#Safety_and_security

            Along with the protection provided by the reinforced concrete base, a number of other safety features were included in the building’s design, so that it would be prepared for a major accident or terrorist attack. Like 7 World Trade Center, the building has 3-foot (91 cm) thick reinforced concrete walls in all stairwells, elevator shafts, risers, and sprinkler systems. There are also extra-wide, pressurized stairwells, along with a dedicated set of stairwells exclusively for the use of firefighters, and biological and chemical filters throughout the ventilation system.[136][182] In comparison, the original Twin Towers used a purely steel central core to house utility functions, protected only by lightweight drywall panels

          • Clark

            Regarding steel structures that collapsed due to fire alone, it’s probably worth examining the Sight and Sound Theater in Pennsylvania and the McCormick Center in Chicago.

          • Nikko

            The difference between Crystal Palace and the WTC towers is telling

            The Towers did not just “collapse” but they destroyed themselves into small fragments by falling vertically down through the path of greatest resistance, which for 300m plus suffered no physical or heat damage

            By contrast, in Crystal Palace the failure of local support points lower down caused the upper structure to topple as a whole (see @ 1.50)

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

          • Clark

            No, not “small fragments”. Many sections were enormous, as can be seen in the collapse videos.

            No, the path of greatest resistance would have been down through the core; the collapse did not proceed that way.

            The collapse proceeded through the path of second-lowest resistance, which was down through the concrete floor assemblies, leaving the perimeter and frame to fall shortly afterwards.

            The path of lowest resistance would have been down through the surrounding space, but this was unavailable, being on the opposite side of the second greatest resistance, the perimeter, which effectively acted as a cage for the internal collapse.

          • Clark

            Oops, I missed one of Nikko’s distortions: – “…which for 300m plus suffered no physical or heat damage”.

            Actually the whole of both Towers had been severely stressed by aircraft impacts. The buildings were out of true, causing some doors to jam in their frames. And a fireball from jet fuel had descended down lift shafts, blowing out at lower levels.

            If you need to repeatedly distort evidence to make a case, the case’s premise is probably wrong.

          • Nikko

            More waffle!

            No, not “small fragments”. Many sections were enormous, as can be seen in the collapse videos.

            Clark is no engineer so he cannot appreciate relative size. In the Crystal Palace video (@1.50), the structural failure was near the bottom and what collapsed above was some 80% or more of the mass the failed supports were carrying.
            In the Towers, the “enormous” chunks seen ejected laterally are an inconsequential fraction of the supporting mass below/

            No, the path of greatest resistance would have been down through the core; the collapse did not proceed that way.

            Did not proceed that way?? What, you mean that the top section flew away and 400m of the columns remained standing??

          • Nikko

            Actually the whole of both Towers had been severely stressed by aircraft impacts.

            More waffle! What does severely stressed mean in this situation and in every point in the structure?

          • Clark

            Nikko, I see you’re reduced to outright lying and playing the fool. I have described my proposed collapse scenario to you repeatedly, yet you insist upon misrepresenting it.

            Yet again, the initial collapse was within the perimeter, outside the core, down through the wide-span, mostly concrete floor assemblies. That left the perimeter laterally unsupported, and it peeled outward. Last to go was the core, presumably crushed near its base as the other debris settled.

            Very, very simple. Anyone with some mechanical nous could understand it, and do the verifying calculations on a postcard.

          • Nikko

            Very, very simple. Anyone with some mechanical nous could understand it, and do the verifying calculations on a postcard.

            Does that include you, Clark? If so, let us see the calculations!

          • Clark

            Sure. Various complications arise, which I shall denote with an asterisk and a numeral.

            Considering WTC1, let’s assume the top section that began to fall had a loaded mass, and therefore a weight, of about 20 times that of a floor assembly, and that a floor assembly could support a static load of about 11 times its own weight (John Goss’ figure).

            It is obvious that the topmost floor assembly of the standing section could not arrest the falling top section. It will therefore have been substantially broken up and/or decoupled from the lower section of the frame. (*1)

            We therefore consider the decrease of velocity of the top section due to conservation of momentum. Momentum has the formula m * v. Let m be the mass of each floor assembly. Therefore the mass of the falling section is about 20m. Let the velocity of the falling section be v. We’re discussing concrete, so it is reasonable to assume inelastic collision (*2). Let m(t) be the mass of falling material after collision, and its velocity be v(t).

            The general formula for an inelastic collision is

            m(1)*v(1) + m(2)*v(2) = m(f)*v(f)

            where (f) denotes “final”, and m(f) = m(1) + m(2). The initial velocity of the floor assembly on the lower section is zero 0, so substituting in our values we have:

            m*0 + 20m*v = 21m*v(t)

            m*0 is of course 0, so rearranging we have:

            v(t) = 20v/21 = ~95.2% of v.

            It is immediately obvious that this collision would slow the top section down by less than 5%. There are various complications that could be considered. Complication (*1) is that the lowest falling floor assembly also would likely be broken up and decoupled from the falling section of frame. However, this would result in an even smaller decrease in the velocity of the top section. The two combined broken floor assemblies would have a velocity of about v/2 from which they would accelerate under gravity. That material may or may not be caught up by the next higher falling floor assembly before encountering the next lower stationary floor assembly. In the end it isn’t really going to matter.

            Another complication is mechanical resistance, but before attempting to subtract velocity from the top section to account for that, we should see whether enough energy has already been liberated to overcome it by the kinetic energy inevitably lost in inelastic collisions. I believe we went through that calculation before, and came up with a figure equivalent to several kilos of TNT. We could go through more of that if you really insist, but you know; we’ve already seen the buildings collapse…

            OK, onto the next collision down. This time the falling mass is 21m (minus losses), so even less velocity will be lost than last time. And it gets less each time.

            Losing less and less than 5% velocity as each floor assembly is entrained, it’s pretty damn obvious that the collapse will accelerate at almost g.

            It is therefore also obvious that there would have been absolutely no point lacing each floor with multiple explosive charges, radio-receiver detonators, batteries to power them and a computer with a multi-channel high speed encrypting transmitter to control it all, to create the appearance of a progressive collapse that was bound to happen anyway. At that realisation I understood why Chomsky says what he does about presenting theories to the academic community and I stopped wasting my brain power on it.

            Thanks for working out a collapse time that takes account of “10% pulverisation”. As I suspected, it doesn’t slow the collapse much at all. Please post a table of collapse times for degrees of “pulverisation” between none and “10%”.

          • glenn_uk

            Pardon my butting in here, but I would appreciate a clarification on this…

            —start quote
            ….
            Let m be the mass of each floor assembly. Therefore the mass of the falling section is about 20m. Let the velocity of the falling section be v. We’re discussing concrete, so it is reasonable to assume inelastic collision (*2). Let m(t) be the mass of falling material after collision, and its velocity be v(t).

            The general formula for an inelastic collision is

            m(1)*v(1) + m(2)*v(2) = m(f)*v(f)

            where (f) denotes “final”, and m(f) = m(1) + m(2). The initial velocity of the floor assembly on the lower section is zero 0, so substituting in our values we have:

            m*0 + 20m*v = 21m*v(t)

            m*0 is of course 0, so rearranging we have:

            v(t) = 20v/21 = ~95.2% of v.

            —end quote

            This is fine, but we ought to consider a couple of things. You say, the static bearing capacity could be 11 times times its own weight. I’d suggest that it has to be considerably more than that, or it could never support the 20 floors above it that it held up perfectly well for many years.

            The weight that fell on it would not be the weight it originally bore, because much of it had been turned to fine powder, or ejected in some fashion, or fell straight to the ground as the top part of the tower twisted before collapsing outside the immediate perimeter of the building.

            But never mind all that. Your calculation that only maybe 5% of the velocity was lost assumes the floor in question was free-floating in air at the time – entirely unemcumbered by a support structure keeping it in place. The same holds true for each of the floors subsequently demolished – we’re supposed to believe they just sat there, floating in isolation – until the progression of the collapse reached it.

            I find that rather hard to accept.

          • Nikko

            Losing less and less than 5% velocity as each floor assembly is entrained, it’s pretty damn obvious that the collapse will accelerate at almost g.

            It is pretty damn obvious that in a collapse accelerating at almost g, most of the potential energy through position is converted to kinetic energy, leaving bugger all energy to destroy the supporting structure. So we are back to the question I asked you months ago – where did the energy to destroy the building come from?

          • Clark

            “11 times times its own weight. I’d suggest that it has to be considerably more than that, or it could never support the 20 floors above it that it held up perfectly well for many years.”

            The floor assemblies didn’t support the structure above. The vertical frame (core and perimeter) supported all the floor assemblies. All the standard floor assemblies were the same strength. There were also three “mechanical floors” for supporting lift winches and other such equipment, and they had stronger floor assemblies.

            This is why I don’t refer to “floors”, which can be confused with storeys ie. levels.

            “The weight that fell on it would not be the weight it originally bore, because much of it had been turned to fine powder, or ejected in some fashion…”

            Watch the collapse videos. The vast majority of the dust wells up from near ground level after the internal collapses have hit bottom. This is consistent with maximum crushing of concrete occurring as the great speed of the internal collapse was forced to a very sudden stop. There is dust released during the collapses, but it is very minor compared with those great clouds.

            “…or fell straight to the ground as the top part of the tower twisted before collapsing outside the immediate perimeter of the building”

            Again, this was relatively minor. In the less conservative case of WTC2, only about 30 storeys of 110 were above the impact zone, and the tipping only reached several degrees; the vast majority of the material began its fall from above the footprint of the building.

            ” Your calculation that only maybe 5% of the velocity was lost assumes the floor in question was free-floating in air at the time – entirely unemcumbered by a support structure keeping it in place”

            Not really. Inelastic collision always dissipates kinetic energy into deformation of the colliding objects. This can be calculated, and it is not trivial. If it is sufficient to substantially break the floor assemblies apart, further energy need not be sought.

            We can look for complications in both directions; ones that subtract from collapse energy, and ones that add to it. For instance, I was only adding m at each entrained floor assembly, but those floors were loaded. Do we know for certain that the buildings were not overloaded? We know there were UPS installations and escalators added to the buildings, and they didn’t anticipate a CRT monitor on every desk when the Twin Towers were designed. Plus there was the weight of a 767 in there, though that’s relatively minor.

          • Clark

            ” where did the energy to destroy the building come from”

            Nikko, we already calculated that. We calculated the gravitational potential energy of all the floor assemblies, and it came to the equivalent of, I can’t remember how many; many tonnes of TNT. Tonnes, not kilos! Can you be bothered to find the appropriate page?

            Obviously, most of that energy wasn’t available for destruction. We don’t have the overall collapse time to enable us to calculate how much was, but the TNT equivalent was so huge you’d only need a small fraction. We know that a fraction was available, because falling pieces of perimeter can be seen overtaking the internal collapse.

          • Clark

            “Obviously, most of that energy wasn’t available for destruction…”

            …but every bit that wasn’t, was available to crush concrete as the collapses hit bottom – hence the enormous clouds welling up immediately after the collapses.

            It’s all very consistent; Twin Tower demolition theory has to be bunk. And from a scientific perspective that’s great, because Twin Tower demolition theory is highly tenuous and highly demanding, and it’s always great to be able to dispense with theories like that.

          • Nikko

            Clark, you have calculated that at the first impact the velocity would be reduced by 5% and by less for subsequent impacts and concluded that “…the collapse will accelerate at almost g.”

            If that is the case than it makes little difference how big the initial gravitational potential energy was because, by the same token, “almost” all of it will be used up to create kinetic energy. You cannot have it both ways. The rest of what you wrote was pure waffle, pronouncing conclusions out of nothing or even out of contradictory statements. All you have proved is that physics is not your thing.

            You cannot ignore real-world effects. If gravity was the only source of energy, then it is necessary for you to demonstrate (through calculations and numbers):

            1) The effect on collapse velocities of loss of mass (pulverization) at each impact point
            2) The effect on collapse velocities due to resistance of materials (breaking the floors from their mountings, the tearing apart of the support structure, etc)
            3) Taking 1 and 2 into consideration, how much energy was surplus at each impact point
            4) How does the surplus energy compare to the energy needed to tear the supporting structures apart
            5) And that the collapse can be achieved within the observed time frame

            That you do not know the collapse time is a lame excuse. You can start by demonstrating that all the conditions for a gravity collapse are met, say within the first 3, 4 or whatever seconds when the collapse is visible.

            Words are not necessary. Only calcs and numbers.

          • Clark

            Nikko, I am not your puppet, and I understand perfectly well your aggressive tactics; if you can bully me into doing reams of calculations you can then pick holes in them, thereby setting the agenda thus projecting an appearance, to non-technical readers, of being the “winning” party. Matters of hard science are not settled this way, and it would be a huge improvement if political matters weren’t either.

            If you wish to continue a technical discussion, cooperate.

            Post your table of values for varying degrees of “pulverisation” and the corresponding collapse times.

            Specify what you actually mean by “pulverisation”, ie. what mathematical adjustment you applied to the calculations.

            Find and link to the potential energy that we already calculated and its conversion to TNT equivalent; why should I make all the effort while you merely throw spanners in the works? Just to help you “win”?

            Stop misrepresenting my position as a technique to strengthen merely the impression made by your arguments.

            To answer your deliberately misleading questions,

            1) is your responsibility, because you have made some calculations, but repeatedly and deliberately omit both to specify them, and to post all the varying collapse times. Stop attempting to manipulate your readers.

            2, 3 and 4) Stop misrepresenting my argument. Repeatedly, I have pointed out that inelastic collisions release energy of deformation which is destructive, yet you constantly ignore this energy. Repeatedly, you suggest that the energy to break up the perimeter structure has to be obtained from the internal collapses. It does not, and cannot.

            5) Explain the advantage to the vast conspiracy that you propose in undertaking massive risk of exposure merely to hasten the collapses by a few seconds.

            I am totally sick of your aggressive, bullying, insulting attitude. That, too, is transparently a technique. You hope to drive me away, leaving you, Goss and the other demolition enthusiasts free to promote lies and mislead the public.

          • Nikko

            Very, very simple. Anyone with some mechanical nous could understand it, and do the verifying calculations on a postcard

            Well, you did promise to do the verifying calculations. If you think that holding you to your own promise and also giving you helpful hints about what you need to do to prove your theory is aggression, then so be it. But rest assured that without meaningful calculations and numbers nobody is going to be convinced.

            NIST knew very well why they excluded the dynamics of the collapse from their analysis – it cannot be defended. Crooks they may be but they are not fools.

            You are not my puppet and neither am I yours. It is you who is proposing a theory and so the onus of proof is on you. Your demand that I search through previous pages to find the potential energy calculation is laughable because it is such an easy calculation that it should not take more than 30 seconds to do again. Do we take it you are not capable of calculating it?

            Besides, the total PE of the whole building is absolutely not relevant to what is happening at the collapsing front because the structure underneath is not moving and so its PE plays no part in the collapse and destruction. Did you not know that?

            Likewise, your demand that I post a table of the collapse times vs the degree of pulverisation. Again, it is a simple calculation so you should be able to do it yourself if you claim any competence in physics. How can you even consider presenting your theory when you are not in possession of this key data?

            Your comment that you find my suggestions on what needs to be done to prove your theory to be “deliberately misleading” is hypocritical in light of what you wrote recently
            Clark June 6, 2017 @13.12
            Present the proof you claim to have, or retract. That is how it is done in the scientific community. If you do neither, your claim to speak with scientific authority is fraudulent.

            Anyway, in what way misleading? Am I misleading you away from believing the fraudulent NIST report and from your dodgy, mixed up science?

            Repeatedly, I have pointed out that inelastic collisions release energy of deformation which is destructive, yet you constantly ignore this energy.

            This is a howler! In the physics I was taught, inelastic collisions absorb energy, but in your world little details like this do not seem to matter.

            Whether you are not able or do not want to do the calculations is moot, because if you did, the results would show that a gravity only collapse is not self-sustaining and runs out of energy quite soon. If you can’t do the maths you can see it very clearly in the video of practical experiments posted by John Goss.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJNzaMRsN00

          • Clark

            You are a liar, Nikko. I don’t wish to redo calculations I have done already, so cut out your accusations of incompetence. The total gravitational potential energy IS relevant because the entire structure fell; as I remember, it came to the equivalent of over 150 tonnes of TNT.

            YOU have already referred to kinetic energy lost in inelastic collisions as “energy of deformation”, and sufficient deformation of a concrete structure is obviously destruction. Your own calculations have already proven rapidity of collapse, even with the subtraction you applied, which remains arbitrary until you specify it.

            You appear to be competent, therefore your deception must be deliberate.

      • Clark

        “This post is commandeered by one person. Any comment of mine which suggests a link between between Israel and 9/11 is deleted. You might be able to work something out from that”

        Ha! I expect my reply will disappear along with yours, as the insinuation above is of course a classic anti-Semitic conspiracy theory!

        FOR the record, my position on Israel is similar to Craig’s. I condemn Israel’s expansionism, its aggressive foreign policy, its occupation of Palestine, and its brutal attacks upon Gaza, and I regard an inclusive, secular one-state solution as the only remaining possibility compatible with justice.

      • John Goss

        “It is a single fact that no steel-structured building has ever collapsed due to fire. Never. Never ever.”

        I should have said high-rise building or skyscraper which is what we are talking about with the twin towers.

        • Clark

          Yes, “high-rise” or “skyscraper” is what you should have said.

          But if it’s the Twin Towers we are talking about, why didn’t you mention the extensive DAMAGE?

          You always seem to ratchet everything in one direction. “Skyscrapers” you morph into “all steel buildings”, whereas “fire and extensive damage” you reduce to just “fire”. The lightweight construction you convert to supremely strong. It seems essentially dishonest, as if you’re trying to mislead.

1 110 111 112 113 114 121