The 9/11 Post 9348


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 *

9,348 thoughts on “The 9/11 Post

1 113 114 115 116 117 122
  • Paul Barbara

    ‘Russia Today Declares 9/11 Was An Inside Job!’:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ugCIjzHptA

    An old video, but I did learn a few things, such as the fact that a high-level ‘Al Queda’ guy was arrested before 9/11, and when jailers asked him why he didn’t pray, and was asking for Port, laughed and said it was just a ‘Strategy of Tension’ (just like the ‘Gladio’ False Flag attacke in Europe in the ’60’s – ’80’s. but which are continueing today as ‘Gladio II’ hoaxes or actual atrocities.

    • Dave

      The irony is its the Zionist excess that is breaking their spell of victimhood as people recoil in fear and revulsion at their lies, double-speak and crimes against humanity. I’m sure the Russian government like all governments would rather not enrage the US by telling the truth about 9/11, but if you’re dammed if you do and dammed if you don’t they not doubt feel they have been left with no option and may have found a vital ally in Trump.

      • Paul Barbara

        @ Dave July 20, 2017 at 23:32
        Trump is an unprincipled chameleon puppet of the PTB, and revels in his Caligula-like power to say or do whatever suits the PTB, but with his stamp of ‘elan’, or better, ‘moron’.

  • Paul Barbara

    ‘Jim Fetzer/Steve De’ak – “The Real Deal” How were the gashes in the Twin Towers made?’:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKGh3CAoO64&feature=youtu.be

    Though they waffle on a bit, there is a very clear picture which shows that a Boeing 767 did not enter that space. There are clearly unbroken beams where parts of the ‘wing’ would have hit; as they didn’t penetrate, where are they? If the supposition is that they sliced up like a tomato through a tomato-slicer, WHY did parts slice up, if the wings in other parts ‘seem’ to have broken right through?
    The pair in the video also claim some bolts were removed. It’s worth watching.
    Also, a few ‘facts’ about the supposed ‘hijacked planes’:
    https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks
    ‘…Airplanes involved[change | change source]
    The first of the four planes to depart was American ­Airlines Flight 11, a Boeing 767-200ER. It was 159 feet and two inches long, with a sixteen-foot-six-inch-wide body that allowed for two aisles. The plane made daily flights between Boston and Los Angeles, and when it took off at 7:59 a.m. on the morning of the eleventh, it carried only 81 passengers in its 158 seats. Forty-seven minutes later, it crashed into the North Tower at 440 mph, carrying 9,717 gallons of jet fuel, 14,000 gallons under capacity.

    United Flight 175, also a Boeing 767-200ER, was the second. Like American Airlines 11, it was scheduled to fly between Boston and Los Angeles. When United 175 took off at 8:14 a.m., it was even lighter than the American flight: Only 56 of 168 seats were occupied. When it crashed into the South Tower at 9:03 a.m., traveling 540 mph, it had 9,118 gallons of fuel in its tanks.

    American Airlines Flight 77 was the third plane to take off, a Boeing 757-200. AA77 left Washington, D.C., at 8:20 a.m. bound for Los Angeles. It was two-thirds empty, with 58 passengers in its 176 seats, and its tanks were 4,000 gallons under its 11,500-gallon capacity. It crashed into the Pentagon at 9:37 a.m., ­flying 530 mph.

    The fourth plane, United Airlines Flight 93, was also a 757-200. It was delayed for 42 minutes past its ­scheduled 8 a.m. departure from Newark, New Jersey bound for San Francisco. When it finally took off, it carried only 37 ­passengers—its capacity was 182—and it was loaded with a little over 7,000 gallons of fuel. It crashed at 560 mph into an empty field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, at 10:03 a.m….’
    Does anyone believe that planes normally fly with so few passengers?
    And as Fetzer and De’ak say, two of the planes weren’t scheduled to fly that day.
    Also, on other sites, the preponderance of government, military or ‘Security’ associated people is extremely suspicious – reminds one of the ‘Operation Northwoods’ plans.
    And all four ‘planes’ were lost to radar for periods whilst in the vicinity of USAF bases, then ‘reappear’ shortly after – again reminding one of the ‘swiitch’ planned for the Northwoods plane.

  • Paul Barbara

    ‘Phillip Marshall an Airline Insider’: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAevsrGBuNI
    He was assassinated, his two teenage children murdered, and his dog shot in what the ‘Authirties’ said was a murder-suicide, but which was obviously a CIA instigated assassination and murders.
    He made the terrible mistake of telling people he had information which he would include in his next book which would ‘blow 9/11 wide open’; for God’s sake, why do people say this stuff, without giving the info to a number of trusted people?
    Marilyn Munroe did it (she did leave a copy with a best friend, but the best friend was murdered too, and both copies of the text were ‘never found’.
    State of Nebraska chief investigator Gary Caradori did the exact same thing, told people he had slam dunk proof of the abuse case, and he and his son were assassinated by a bomb planted on his private aircraft; the proof he had with him was ‘never found’.
    Caradori had been hired by the Nebraska unicameral legislature to investigate allegations that a number of Nebraska youth had been sexually abused and transported over state lines in a scandal centered around the Franklin Credit Union, headed by rising GOP African-American star Lawrence King.
    ( “100% Certain”: 9/11 Author Was Killed in Black Ops Hit’:
    http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/02/20/100-certain-911-author-was-killed-in-black-ops-hit/ )

    • Hieroglyph

      It has long been my view that if I had information that would ‘blow 9-11 wide open’, I would immediately book a cruise, take the information with me on the cruise, and throw it over board when I reached the middle of the Ocean. And I’d certainly tell nobody.

      I think the blandness of the corporate media has lulled some people. Rich, powerful players in the world have private militias, and are happy to pay for assassinations. They can easily subvert the law, which is laughably corrupt, and can and will ‘suicide’ lowly citizens who stumble across interesting information. To read the media, you’d think these billionaires were all lefty philanthropists who want to cure cancer. Some of them, maybe. Most of them? Headcases who are actively planning population reduction, and wondering if they can build cities on Mars, to escape the apocalypse.

      I never used to believe this, when I was at University. But the world of work has been instructive. It is often said that you can tell the state of a society by looking at a local village. Well, I always look at the workplace. Being smart, hard-working, and able tends to relegate people to the lower ranks; being a narcissist who talks a lot, well they ‘lead’, don’t they? I think it’s something to do with verbal IQ personally, which is massively over-rated as a leadership trait, though not in itself a bad thing.

      Anyhow, this is all to say, there is a reason the Clinton’s are free, and rich. And it aint their charm and talent.

    • Node

      That video alone is enough to prove that government insiders were involved in the conspiracy from the beginning rather than exploiting a terrorist attack; ie it was MIHOP rather than LIHOP.

      • Many people testified to receiving phone calls from friends and relatives while the hijackings were ongoing.
      • The calls were from cell phones rather than airplane phones because caller ID recognized the phone numbers of their loved ones.
      • All the calls were clear and without background noise, and some lasted as long as 20 minutes.
      • Receiving such cell phone calls from an airplane under such circumstances is impossible.

      Therefore parts of the 911 event were staged using methods unavailable to genuine hijackers. It’s not up to Truthers to explain the motives for the deception, though we can speculate. It’s up to Believers to demonstrate why this is not proof of insider participation before the planes even hit the Twin Towers.

  • Paul Barbara

    Here are three good 9/11 videos to watch if you have not seen them already:

    ‘”Everybody’s Gotta Learn Sometime” – VO ST FR: (1 hour twelve minutes):
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lW9P6s1IbGA

    ‘ZERO: An Investigation Into 9-11 | Full Documentary’: (2 hours):
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gETF0_SOXcg
    ‘Zero’ is particularly good at showing the shenanigans got up to by the ‘alleged hijackers’, in order to lay a false, ‘government narrative friendly’ ‘red herring’ trail.

    ‘Behind the Smoke Curtain – 2nd Edition (2015)’: (2 hours 30 mins.):
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXBk8JqwFlw

      • Node

        I’ve seen that video … but I’ve also seen a more recent one by Richard D Hall in which he retracts his conclusions that there was a mysterious ball. I can’t find the later video, but from memory, he now believes the ‘ball’ was some sort of optical distortion. He hasn’t changed his mind that 911 was an inside job, just that the ‘ball’ video was as significant as he first thought. I’ll keep looking for the retraction, but he used to have a weekly 2 hour slot on a satellite TV channel so he’s made many hours of film to search through.

        • KingofWelshNoir

          It did seem a bit ‘too good to be true’. Maybe it was put there deliberately to trap the troofers. I’m sure that was the purpose behind Larry Silverstein’s ‘pull it’ comment.

      • Node

        Here is Richard D Hall interviewing someone and admitting that he got it wrong about the ‘ball.’ He explains that he has produced a full video explaining his new theory about it and plays a 2 minute intro to that video (from 5min 29)
        https://youtu.be/GTSzHmHnR78?t=329

        BTW, Richard doesn’t believe in explosive demolition, he backs Judy Wood’s ‘advanced energy weapon’ theory.

        • John Goss

          I saw the ball video and the second one of Richard D. Hall in which he concludes he was mistaken. I already respected him for his work on the Maddy case. If I remember correctly in the second video he suggests some kind of missile might have been responsible. But he clearly supports to some extent Judy Wood’s ‘energy weapon’ theory now.

          Judy Wood is definitely correct about the wings not being able to cut through steel. But I am not sure about the advanced weapon theory mostly because it takes no account of the molten metal at the foot of the twin towers which continued to be present for nearly three months after 9/11. As to the poor woman leaning against one of the severed steel girders there are other possible reasons why that girder was not hot. I think military grade nano thermite creates very localised heat which would quickly cool on a long cold girder. Or most of the girder may have been weaked earlier and only a little was needed to finish the job on 9/11.

          I am still leaning towards the below ground nuclear device theory in conjunction with carefully rigged nano-thermite charges. Of course that is the one not allowed to be discussed here because Veterans’ Today believe that to be the most obvious scenario. They also believe that Israel was behind the plot.

    • Nikko

      I have just finished watching the Mazzuco videos and they are an excellent summary of the arguments on both sides and particularly of all the questions which the official version left unanswered.

      • KingofWelshNoir

        Yes, I thought it was very good. It’s been a few years now since I watched any 9/11 documentaries and clearly they have really matured. In the face of the evidence presented, the debunkers looked rather pathetic, especially as all their arguments were comprehensively refuted. The prize for sociopathy must go to Larry Silverstein. That sequence was unforgettable. A building that was seemingly carved out of asbestos, it couldn’t be fixed or demolished without filling lower Manhattan with asbestos dust, no one wants it, he takes out a lease and is so eager to sign off the deal that he gets the doctors to take him off morphine following a car crash. Then in a TV interview we see him badly acting, expressing his horror at what happened, which he luckily missed because his wife made him an appointment with the dermatologist. Then at the end we see the first responders, dying in large numbers, crippled, on ventilators, knowing they would soon be dead…really shocking.

        • John Goss

          I concur with both of you over this. But the mainstream media will not go down that road while the modern-day Himmlers and Goerings are still living a life of luxury, or simply still living. Nobody wants to spend their last years incarcerated.

          It just shows the power of the few over the many that purportedly unbiased news outlets keep their audiences in total ignorance. In Soviet days Russians used to say there is no news in Izvestiya (NEWS) and no truth in Pravda (TRUTH). Today western media is much worse than either of those Soviet newspapers. For that reason, when I went for a round of golf yesterday, I left Russia Today on to keep the dogs company. I’m not having my dogs brainwashed.

          • Bobm

            I have recommended Mazzuco, here, in the past; but I have now watched the three pieces recommended by PB, to see if there was anything new there.
            I have always disbelieved the Pentagon story, the light poles being one issue of mine that I hadn’t seen discussed before.
            What I didn’t know before was what Rumsfeld had done with the interceptor protocols. Nor was I aware quite how many western politicians have said, publicly, that it was an inside job.
            Amusingly, Yesterday’s Guardian ran an obituary of Mustapha Tlass, one time Syrian defence minister, who, inter alia “..blamed the Israeli intelligence agency, Mossad, for the 9/11 attacks on the US”.
            I am writing to Guardian letters to comment that at least he got THAT one right.

          • John Goss

            Bobm, save your ink. The Guardian does not publish anything blaming Israel for major crimes.

            As to the light poles (I presume you mean the ones on the approach to the Pentagon) they might have damaged the poles but the poles (posts) would have taken off the wings of the airliner (if ever there was an airliner).

          • Bobm

            Thank you, John.
            Yes, I knew that my letter was never going to be published, particularly with J Freedland in control.
            But I guessed that it woud give the editorial staff pause for thought; and stiffen their resolve for the future.

    • John Goss

      The Jill Stein article is quite right. A new inquiry into 9/11 is needed, badly needed, to bring closure for the families and – though this is on a wish-list rather than speculation about what is feasible – bring the real perpetrators to justice.

      Incidentally, after accessing The Hill’s article I could not use the back button to return to this blog.

    • KingofWelshNoir

      Ha what a coincidence, his wife works for the FBI.

      Good find, Paul. The whole thing in a nutshell. If the toppled light poles were staged – and clearly they were – then so was the whole event. Imagine the cab driver being cross-examined on that story under oath in a witness box. His story would unravel in minutes. Alas, one’s imagination is the only place you are likely to see it.

  • Dave

    Although the official 9/11 conspiracy theory is easily debunked, you have to wonder, if so easy, why they provide the ‘cover story’ in the first place. I mean an unidentified plane approaches the White House and would normally be automatically shot down, but isn’t (must be due to a don’t shoot down order) and then the plane turns and following an impossible manoeuvre the alleged plane involved ‘hits’ the Pentagon at a recently refurbished part of the building housing the accounts department. I mean its not remotely credible and yet we’re expected to believe it. Hence it explains the phrase “treason never prospers, because if it prospers, none dare call it treason”!

  • KingofWelshNoir

    Not sure if this article on Grenfell Tower and 9/11 in the Indy has been posted, but I’m reposting it in order to invite you to read the comments. The 9/11 truthers are out in force and some of the comments are quite funny.

    This is a good example:

    Scotland Yard: “Why didn’t Grenfell collapse?”
    It didn’t have secondary explosives in the building like both WTC Towers on 9/11.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/grenfell-tower-fire-latest-9-11-september-11-twin-tower-terror-experts-police-investigation-a7850676.html

    • Paul Barbara

      @ KingofWelshNoir July 30, 2017 at 08:10
      Yes, it is a welcome fact the in MSM comment sections, 9/11 Truthers normally outnumber and have far better comments than ‘Government narrative believers’. I strongly suspect that is why papers like the Guardian have so few ‘Comment’ sections on controversial issues (9/11, Syria, Yemen, Princess Di etc), and they often close those they do have in the early hours of the morning that the article comes out on.

    • mog

      I hope the ‘American experts’ who have been drafted in do not bury the remains of the Grenfell dead in a landfill site as they did in NYC.

      Interesting that the estimated death toll for 911 started much higher and quickly came down to 2996 (even though many of them were turned to dust and no bodily remains found), whereas the Grenfell estimate is still “at least 80” a month after the trajedy. Will there ever be an official final death toll? If not, why not? [rhetorical questions]
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_September_11_attacks

  • Paul Barbara

    ‘FEMA was in New York the Night Before 9/11’: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/fematape.html
    There to prepare for a mass casualty ‘drill’; eight or nine airforce ‘drills’ on 9/11, including one where a light plane was was going to be flown into a building.
    There are so frequently ‘drills’ at these events; doesn’t it tend to make people a tad suspicious? Then of course there were the ‘drills’ at the three precise underground stations on 7/7; and the Panorama crystal ball program with Portillo almost exactly a year before 7/7, involving three tube trains and a lorry ‘BBC Panorama: London Under Attack (the show that predicted 7/7)’:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7uIjg9dtoI
    And of course the 2011 Breivik Norway massacre – a ‘drill’ had just been completed in the vicinity.
    But how about this? It came out at the 7/7 ‘Inquest’, but I have only just learnt of it:
    ‘7/7 London Bombings: An ‘emergency mortuary’ was established in London the day BEFORE the catastrophe’:
    http://abundanthope.net/pages/Political_Information_43/7-7-London-Bombings–An-emergency-mortuary-was-established-in-London-the-day-BEFORE-the-catastrophe_printer.shtml
    Yet the Corporate media just lets it all go by the board, with no in-depth investigations or calling to account.

      • Paul Barbara

        @ Bobm August 2, 2017 at 18:14
        Yep, I believe they were mentioned in the 7/7 link.
        Interesting no one has knocked any of this!!!!!
        Maybe the cat’s got their typing fingers!!
        But to be fair, ‘coincidences do happen’, but to this extent?
        So, there is a wise old saying, ‘Let sleeping dogs lie’; perhaps we need to add another new saying, ‘Let dogs running off with their tails between their legs escape unhindered’!.

    • Maxter

      Good link to the 7/7 mortuary. I was aware of the certainty that it was a staged event, and this info reinforces that. Thanks

        • Paul Barbara

          @ Kempe August 7, 2017 at 16:04
          Really? Yes, Kempe, really. Notice the
          http://terroronthetube.co.uk/inquest-articles/77-inquest-was-someone-afraid-to-reveal-the-causes-of-deaths/
          ‘….[1] Military site for the Bodies
          It is also quite startling to realise that a special room had been set up to receive the dead – starting work on July 6th, the day before the 7/7 massacres.
          Here is a statement about what happened on that day, and where the bodies went:
          Based in Northamptonshire in the UK, the company [De Boer] had already completed several contracts for the Metropolitan Police …The De Boer team spent months visiting permanent mortuaries and attending meetings with London Resilience to suggest a suitable structure and interior design… Six months later on July 6, 2005, a document arrived at De Boer’s UK headquarters finalising what had been agreed for a future crisis response. Within 24 hours the plan was being realised .and implemented with the creation of a temporary mortuary in the grounds of the Honourable Artillery Company near Moorgate Underground Station in central London.’ (source, ‘London’s Response to 7/7’ David Donegan Office of the Strategic Health Authorities at NHS, in http://www.crisisresponsejournal.com no longer online, held in J7 archives: and quoted here)
          Good timing or what? Thus an ‘emergency mortuary’ was established on a Military site in the City of London – its contract for the work received on the day before the catastrophe. Not only did this military site receive all of the bodies (and it claimed to start receiving them on the morning of 8th July), but it set up ancillary sites adjacent to the four blast sites on the morning of July 7th: ‘Outside of the mortuary De Boer also provided structures and furniture at each of the Underground Stations affected, and refrigeration facilities at the site of the bus bombing.’
          The De Boer company managed it so well that, in recognition, its project manager was invited to meet Tony Blair at Downing Street. It was felt that, at such very short notice – after all, they only got the job on July 6th – they had done a fine job. Concerning the swift freezing of the bus bomb victim bodies: while researching ‘Terror On The Tube’ . I could only see two or three corpses lying around in all of the photographs of that bus wreck, so I guess the De Boer team must have removed them swiftly.
          We are also reminded of the big FEMA vans that arrived to clear up the damage in New York at Ground Zero on 9/11 (Federal Emergency Management Agency): they were proud of how quickly they arrived, in fact they arrived (by a similar sinister precognition) on Monday evening, the day before the very surprising 9/11 event……’

          Notice: ‘….in http://www.crisisresponsejournal.com no longer online, ….’
          What one gets now at that web link is: ‘Was muss ich für eine Sportwetten-Lizenz tun?’; I have seen this sort of thing before, like when a website belonging to Aaron Russo was bequeathed to Gary Franchi when Aaron was dying, and was illegally taken over, and a piss-taking group took it over.
          The ‘crisisresponsejournal’ article J7 refers to looks like it might still be available behind a pay-wall:
          https://www.crisis-response.com/subscribe/?article

          But I know the author of the article, and though I do not see eye to eye with him on many issues, I know he is not a liar.
          So I believe the quotes from the site (whilst it was available) are pucka.
          He was the one who through his painstakingly thorough investigation forced the police to revise their LIE that the 4 alleged ‘suicide bombers’ came to London on a specific train (the train had been cancelled!).

    • John Goss

      It is a good article Macky. Thanks. I think OffGuardian does really good work, especially when compared against the actual Gaurdian from which it takes its name.

      Those who have not the time to read it all could understand the message from the Conclusion at the end. Nevertheless it is well worth reading in its entirety. I know quite a few here are familiar with the paper from which this comes.

      • John Goss

        Yes, well, considering where Snopes gets its funding it would say that, to paraphrase MRD.

        The 911 Commission Report and NIST reports have not been peer-reviewed except by AE911 truth. Your link is useless except it points to a website error which has clearly been replicated without being checked. But trust you Kempe. If you can’t answer the article you attack a mistake in its distribution. Par for the course.

  • Paul Barbara

    Just to clarify in people’s minds: in questioning the PTB ‘narrative’ on 9/11 (and related issues), we are not just ‘pissing in the wind’.
    We either believe what we are saying, or we are barking up a gum tree.
    I know no one whom I have met whilst campaigning for 9/11 truth who has just taken it up as a hobby; sure, there are infiltrators (infil-Traitors) who wish to inform and derail our attempts to get to the truth – such a thing! Only to be expected.
    But the Truth will out, come hell or high water, enventionalmente!
    We shall overcome some day (even if it is not till the ‘Day of Judgement’)!
    There’s a hard rain gonna fall.

  • Michael McNulty

    I think a strong indicator 9/11 was an inside job by the neo-cons [and their foreign government puppetmasters] was the impeachment of Clinton a few years earlier. I think this was done because the neo-cons needed to ruin the Democrat election chances in 2000, otherwise the security agencies under a Gore White House would have uncovered the treasonous plot and very serious charges would have followed. When Gore still won they then had to go in and steal it from him, after which the chances of conviction for treason have all been removed.

  • KingofWelshNoir

    Hey Kempe!

    You’re back. Three pages ago in response to one of your visits, I posted a polite question to you, but alas you had already departed. Fortunately , I have the patience of Job, so I am going to repost the question. Since you are – as I’m sure you would agree – a defender of the official narrative I would be genuinely interested in your view.

    Here is my question:

    Hi Kempe

    When you say that, like the Holy Grail, the 9/11 conspiracy doesn’t exist, I take that to mean you are a defender of the official narrative. Would you be kind enough therefore to tell me what you think about a couple of items that feature large on the conspiracy theory narrative?

    1. Satam Al-Suqami’s passport. According to the 9/11 Commission, Satam Al-Suqami was one of the hijackers on board AA Flight number 11. His passport was allegedly found in the vicinity of the WTC before the Towers collapsed. How did it get there?

    2. WTC 7 is ‘about to blow up’

    Building 7 was a 47 storey building that collapsed into its own footprint at freefall speed, displaying numerous characteristics of a controlled demolition.

    We have CNN footage showing firemen and cops moving people back from the building saying the building is ‘about to blow up’

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cU_43SwWD9A

    To me that CNN footage means exactly what it says on the tin, Building 7 was blown up. Presumably you don’t think that, so can you tell me what your explanation of the footage is?

    Many thanks

  • mog

    Another great podcast by Tom Secker.
    If anyone considers the story just on the level of official documentation from the intelligence services about what they knew and when, it stinks to high heaven.
    I agree with Tom that the only way it makes sense is if some kind of intelligence network was facilitating the plot.
    Kempe, do you believe the actions of CIA can be attributed to ‘intelligence failure’?
    http://www.spyculture.com/clandestime-117-alternative-history-al-qaeda-911-intelligence-failure/

  • Paul Barbara

    @ Kempe

    Two issues: you wanted info about the Syrian ‘boy in the ambulance’ hoax – here it is (there are other sites as well):
    ‘FAKE NEWS BUSTED: Iconic Syrian Boy Had Makeup On, Father Speaks’:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3yaEgM1vPY
    Safis?
    And needless to say, I am still awaiting your link to the non-existent ‘arrest’ of Louisa Ortega….
    I notice there are a few others waiting for answers from you.

        • mog

          In the context of our written history it is amazing that we have these few relatively independent media outlets, and that makes me think of how many events of the past we do not know the details of. I hope they survive the efforts to censor the web.

          The attempt (seen on these forums) to play down the significance of false flags and deceptive propaganda seems absurd now that they are so well documented.

          None more so than 911 itself.

          • Clark

            “The attempt (seen on these forums) to play down the significance of false flags and deceptive propaganda seems absurd now that they are so well documented”

            Are you accusing commenters on this thread? Please state names.

          • Paul Barbara

            @ Clark August 8, 2017 at 23:25
            Surely ‘they’ know who they are? If the cap fits….

          • mog

            Clark,
            The accusation was made generally toward commenters on forums far and wide who pooh-pooh the importance of grand deception, high crimes and false flag operations in our attempts to understand international affairs.
            Kempe, for example, ‘waves his hand’ that the massive propaganda drive before the Gulf War (1990) was basically insignificant to the way that situation played out. He demands evidence for stories that children have been used as propaganda tools in massively amplified deceptions in the Syria conflict. These things are not lacking documented evidence – anyone genuinely interested in foreign affairs would quickly find them out in todays online media.
            Ditto, the 911 controversies. Fair enough to take issue or raise arguments about aspects of the case(s) made by the 911 research community, but Kempe will not refute ANY part of the 911 narrative layed out in the commission report or other official documents. This is simply not an intellectually credible position in my opinion.

          • Clark

            I think you’re being unfair to Kempe; maybe that’s just Kemp’s style.

            Some people are motivated to refute false things; it’s all part of human diversity. On a conspiracy-theorists’ thread like this, any refutation of any element of any conspiracy theory prompts multiple conspiracy theorist commenters to post further snippets of even more marginal plausibility, prompting further refutations in reply. The conspiracy theorists then dismiss the objector as an agent, and the objections are forgotten.

            Avoiding this is the purpose of the moderation rule “play the ball, not the man. Engage with the issues rather then the commenter”. Imputing motive also breaks the moderation rules. But the long-winded conspiracy theorist insinuation and distributed responsibility game gets it past the mods, who have to read all the comments on the other threads as well.

            I point this out because I doubt you’ve considered the possibility. I don’t discount myself; I have to assume that my own motives are only partially knowable by my consciousness, and that I’m likely to engage in tricks to achieve them without even meaning to. Sometimes I’ve caught myself at it in retrospect:

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSO9OFJNMBA

          • Paul Barbara

            @ Clark August 9, 2017 at 08:22
            My comment is not in Swahili; i’ts not in code. It means precisely what it says, no more, no less.

          • Paul Barbara

            @ Clark August 9, 2017 at 10:13
            ‘…The conspiracy theorists then dismiss the objector as an agent, and the objections are forgotten….’
            Clark, it is YOU who are always cracking on about ‘Agents’; I don’t believe I have EVER called anyone an agent on this blog (that does not mean I don’t believe there are some – it would be extremely remiss of the PTB not to infiltrate this blog).
            And I certainly don’t forget the ‘objections’, and do my best to give additional information, which does dig into my time, but I do it. I’ve even hunted down info, at your request for someone to help find something.
            Now, about Kempe. He asked me to provide info about the ‘Syrian Ambulance Boy’; I did so, and others did too, but what has Kempe done in response? Dissappeared into his bunker.
            Is that the right thing to do?

  • Paul Barbara

    ‘9/11 MYSTERY PASSENGERS EXPOSED: THE PLANES WERE SWITCHED’:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AeVxnTO8Gu4
    Though we have all seen the videos about the impossible phone calls from high altitudes, this short 5-minute video clip shows something I was not aware of (or maybe I had forgotten) – the very large time discrepancy between when Todd Beamer supposedly said ‘Let’s roll’, and the times others gave for when the ‘hikackers’ supposedly entered the cockpit.
    I and some others believe the Boeings rendezvoused with drones, then were landed at military bases, while the drones continued, tracked as the passenger planes. Then the passengers (unless they were in on the deal and were bankrolled and given new identities in far-off countries) were murdered, the likely fate of MH 370 passengers in Diego Garcia.

    • Clark

      I think Trowbridge H Ford has a theory that overlaps and possibly conflicts with this, but I doubt you’ll get him to detail it; he’ll just refuse to cite evidence and tell you to buy the magazine it was published in.

      Personally I think there’s little chance of there being any compelling evidence for this, so I’m not going to follow the link. I’m attempting to explain rather than disparage. Time is limited and links are abundant; readers have no choice but to be selective.

      • Paul Barbara

        @ Clark August 9, 2017 at 09:30
        I explained the reason I put the link in – it was principally the ‘Todd Beamer’ phone call.
        Now I can sympathise with you about checking out endless links, and having to be selective; but this video clip is less than five minutes long!! Hardly a huge dent in your day. AND, it relates to BIG discrepancies in the ‘Official Narrative’, with zero ‘theory’!
        Their timeline just completely contradicts itself.

    • mog

      I think that the hypothesis that planes were switched and phone calls made as part of a dummy ‘exercise’ does answer a lot of questions:

      -As mentioned, the strange dialogue and lack of any commotion in the phone recordings.
      -The discrepancies around mobile use at altitude in 2001 on those particular planes
      -The extreme speeds, maneuvers and maneuvarability of the aircraft that hit the three buildings
      -The improbable nature of the hijackings themselves (the weapons, the storming of the cockpits, the lack of pilots’ reports to ATC, the lack of emergency hijack codes from pilots)
      -Whether or not the known excersizes simulating hijackings and planes crashing into buildings on that day, were somehow related to the 911 plot
      -The controversies about the crash sites and black boxes…
      etc.
      We have basically next to no evidence uncontestable though. The FBI almost certainly does and could easily settle these questions. That the official investigations didn’t demand such evidence is, well, it’s not good.

  • James Dickenson

    Here is something of ‘interest’ that you probably have seen?
    “Pentagon the 9/11 video that was aired once and never aired again

    . . . and as I said the only pieces
    0:35
    left that you can see are small enough
    0:38
    that you could pick up in your hand
    0:39
    there are no large tail sections wing
    0:42
    sections a fuselage nothing like that
    0:45
    anywhere around which would . . . ”

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07Bn_CC_mrg&feature=youtu.be

    • John Goss

      There was no plane flew into the Pentagon. There were probably no planes flew into the twin towers. That the whole of 9/11 is a massive cover-up by US government agencies is evident from this once aired report by an obviously honest reporter who was not in on the event. Thank God it has survived because otherwise people would go on believing the crap as no doubt those addicted to MSM do. Thanks for posting.

    • John Goss

      The Pentagon is one of the most secure buildings on the planet, yet there have been no released official videos from the 9/11 attacks. This is rather grainy footage from a gas station camera which the Pentagon would not release for at least five years. The comments are worth reading.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I06RADAMOqo

      Here is another honest man, Albert N. Stubblebine III, an army major general who believed the official story before his wife star asking questions. He is a patriot who cannot believe his government would do such a thing and now feels cheated.

      http://yournewswire.com/army-general-missile-hit-pentagon-911/

    • Paul Barbara

      @ James Dickenson August 9, 2017 at 09:29
      I’ve put up a shorter version of this before, but as it came after your short clip above, I’ll add it here, as it is just another clear indication that the whole thing was centrally organised, and that the ‘Government narrative’ bears zero relation to the truth.
      The ‘downed light poles’ which had to have appeared ‘before’ the ‘attack’ (otherwise how could they have been filmed immediately after it?) shows they had their lying narrative all planned out. How could they possible know that a ‘plane’ would ‘attack’ the Pentagon, and from that side?
      ‘9/11 Pentagon Attack – Strange Case of the Taxi Cab and Light Pole No. 1’:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crvWTg-Lb6U&feature=youtu.be#t=347.800229

      Interestingly, none of the ‘scoffers’ have taken up the gauntlet on this one! They should, because if this was faked, then it is highly indicative the whole caboodle was faked (which it was, but 3000 odd people certainly did die, and many more have died from the poisonous dust etc, as well as millions from the wars perpetrated since under the umbrella of 9/11, but not as per ‘narrative’).

      ANY investigative journalist could see plainly that that pole could not have gone through the cab windscreen, at high velocity (or even low velocity!) and done so little damage. But has one stepped up to the plate? No, apart from the Truth community. And the PTB KNEW that the MSM was on board, or cowed and submissive, or they would never have tried to get away with such a ridiculous scenario.

  • mog

    @Clark
    I think you’re being unfair to Kempe; maybe that’s just Kempe’s style.
    Huh? This is not about ‘style’, it about a position in an argument.

    Some people are motivated to refute false things; it’s all part of human diversity.
    Which ‘false things’ though? – that is the question. The false things in the 911 Commission Report that have formed the basis of a perpetual war and a decline in democracy, or some highly speculative theory on a web forum about holograms ?

    On a conspiracy-theorists’ thread like this, any refutation of any element of any conspiracy theory prompts multiple conspiracy theorist commenters to post further snippets of even more marginal plausibility, prompting further refutations in reply. The conspiracy theorists then dismiss the objector as an agent, and the objections are forgotten.
    I agree this does happen, although I often read as much paranoia on both sides. Your determination to keep using the ‘conspiracy theorist’ label in a certain way is revealing. I say that anyone (Kempe?) who defends the official narrative is a conspiracy theorist, they just believe a different conspiracy. Once one gets past that hurdle, your paragraph there could be leveled at just about anybody, and so is not that useful.

    Avoiding this is the purpose of the moderation rule “play the ball, not the man. Engage with the issues rather then the commenter”. Imputing motive also breaks the moderation rules.
    The whole purpose of using the term ‘conspiracy theorist’ as a pejorative is exactly the ploy of playing the man not the ball. The term is laden with <i?a priori connotations that your opponent is mentally inferior or unhinged with a dishonest motive.

    I point this out because I doubt you’ve considered the possibility. I don’t discount myself; I have to assume that my own motives are only partially knowable by my consciousness, and that I’m likely to engage in tricks to achieve them without even meaning to. Sometimes I’ve caught myself at it in retrospect:
    If only you knew of the years of mental self searching trying to understand where my own mental filters and propensities might have led me to a perverse conclusion about 911.
    To contest 911 is an absurdly controversial stance to take, but one that is backed by an absurd amount of evidence.

    • Clark

      I agree this does happen, although I often read as much paranoia on both sides. Your determination to keep using the ‘conspiracy theorist’ label in a certain way is revealing. , they just believe a different conspiracy.

      “Your determination to keep using the ‘conspiracy theorist’ label in a certain way is revealing”

      Innuendo; or may well be taken as such.

      “I say that anyone who defends the official narrative is a conspiracy theorist”

      Conspiracy theorists constantly do say that. It ignores the existence of the conspirology mindset, which is clearly identifiable unless you’re blinkered to it. It’s the sort of mindset that presents a single-frame vidcap as “evidence” against hundreds of eye-witness reports, or insists that a photo which “doesn’t look like a woman run over by a bus” proves that the police performed the London Bridge attack. It’s the same mindset that reduces all inspection of evidence to “supporting the official story”, and causes multiple commenters to all attack any dissenters until they can continue their yarn weaving without inconvenient interruption.

      Still, I’m pissing in the wind, so I’ll piss off again. I’m interested in evidence and reasoning, so the prevailing mood on this thread is boring to me.

      • mog

        I see what you call the ‘conspirology mindset’ in play (in essentially the same way) when Colin Powell makes a case for WMDs to the UN security council, or when the CIA cooks a report about USSR’s plans to militarily spread communism to the whole world, or when John McCain promotes a video alleging that basically the entire Muslim world is plotting to overthrow the West…

        For what it is worth, I had a distressing interaction online in the aftermath of the recent Manchester bomb. Commenters on a decent forum were suddenly promoting the notion that the deaths were either fake, or yet to be properly evidentially established. They were keen to point out that there were photos circulating of a drill that had taken place recently at the same location purporting to be of the actual attack. They were keen to point out there was little in the way of smartphone footage of dismembered bodies that would ‘prove’ that actual people had died. They were less keen to do the (approx 5 mins) research required to find dozens and dozens of social media accounts of the deceased and their friends/ relatives, or the personal testimonies of the medical staff who tried to save lives that night.
        I relate that back to you and say, I know what you are talking about. I had neighbours who had colleagues who were there in Manchester, yet there I was being accused of being a ‘Guardian infiltrator’ on a forum for pointing out how unwilling these so called skeptics were to challenge their own thinking.
        This though is not the same as labelling such commenters as irrational per se (as the ‘conspiracy theorist’ label seeks to do). Indeed deaths do seem to have been faked in Syria, so I can understand someone exploring that hypothesis. It’s just quite easy to falsify is all.
        The objection I have with your argument is that the CT label tries to link such spurious interpretation of evidence exclusively with those who propose cover ups, deception, government conspiracy as a plausible explanation for things that happen in the world. Surely you can see the danger, the societal power of such ‘playing the man’ technique?

        With regard to this thread, why not introduce some more evidence yourself? There is plenty besides the controlled demolition theory to 911 that has led people to reject the official conspiracy theory. I linked to another Secker podcast up the thread, what is your opinion of his work? Seems pretty solid to me.
        Some people call it conspiracy theory, I call it democracy Michael Parenti

        • Paul Barbara

          @ mog August 9, 2017 at 16:36
          ‘….They were less keen to do the (approx 5 mins) research required to find dozens and dozens of social media accounts of the deceased and their friends/ relatives, or the personal testimonies of the medical staff who tried to save lives that night…..’

          If people did die, it does not mean they died ‘as per narrative’; the narrative called it a ‘suicide bomber’, but there is no evidence of that that I have seen; it could have been a remote controlled detonation. There is evidence of that in the Middle East, where cars/lorries are remotely detonated, and called ‘suicide bombs’.
          The fact that the ‘alleged suicide bomber’s’ father had done jobs for MI5/6 in Libya, and was a master bomb-maker, and that the son had been on MI5 and police radar, could mean they would like to use him again, so might have faked his sons death.
          As the PTB are not bothered about killing people under ‘False Flag’ contexts, I think in this case people probably were killed, but the fact that people claim to be relatives and friends of ‘victims’ does not prove to me it happened, nor medics making similar claims (a British doctor was shown to be lying about an alleged ‘Chemical Attack’ in Syria; a Kuwaiti doctor was on TV testifying about the Kuwaiti ‘Incubator Baby’ lie; doctors regularly attend torture sessions, and have been known to be involved in torture themselves.

          I don’t know what happened at Manchester; even if I had been in the vicinity, unless I was actually in the Foyer where the attack was supposed to have occurred would I be in a position to say (if I was still alive!).

          ‘…I had neighbours who had colleagues who were there in Manchester….’

          Fine; but unless they were in the foyer, they will only know ‘something’ happened: they may have seen people running off, police cars and ambulances flying about with sirens wailing, even have heard the blast and seen the flash, but they would be reliant on the police, media or other stories as to exactly what had happened.

          ‘…Indeed deaths do seem to have been faked in Syria, so I can understand someone exploring that hypothesis. It’s just quite easy to falsify is all. …’

          And deaths seem to have been faked here as well: I say ‘seem’ because that is what it looks like. Take the Westminster Bridge episode: EXTREMELY indistinct video of the offending car careening across the bridge, and only appear to show it about to mount the kerb – and that’s it. It doesn’t show it on the pavement at all (till other clear pictures show it stopped next to Parliament walls).
          There appears to be no blood on or around ‘terrorist’ allegedly shot multiple times by police. And this picture takes some believing:
          https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=LBC+westminster+bridge+attack+pictures&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwixg4jV8srVAhXpIcAKHYKLC4sQ7AkIQg&biw=1600&bih=770#imgrc=rsWt7xe-f9NqRM:

          In the London Bridge attack, a guy is seen being stabbed and kicked by three men (the ‘Terrorists’), who run off when police arrive, who then shoot them. But the attacked guy is seen lying motionless; suddenly, a police car which has been parked without it’s handbrake on starts trundling towards him. A guy runs out from off-camera, presumably says something to the guy lying on the deck, and the guy jumps up and legs it. Previously, the guy ‘off camera’ had not made a move to assist this presumably badly injured, or maybe dead, guy. In another video of the same London Bridge attack, police are seen changing into civvies behind police vans, including one changing into combat trousers very similar to those worn by one of the ‘terrorists’, and another into a hoodie.

          I am not saying no one died in the attack, but do seriously doubt it was as we were told.
          When I went to one of the pubs allegedly involved in the attacks, I was told by a barmaid that the police had told them not to discuss what happened. I’m sure that all the venues allegedly involved were told the same.
          So, knowing that these kind of ‘False Flag’ events/hoaxes do occur, I don’t believe a word of the official narrative.

          But I do also understand that some ‘Conspiracy Theorists’ can be extremely insensitive as well as imbecilic: a friend of mine, whose brother died in one of the Towers, was told he probably didn’t have a brother and had made the whole thing up, and that no one died in the Towers.

          But raising questions about photo or video ‘evidence’ does seem to me legitimate.

          • mog

            @Paul Barbara
            With regards to the Manchester event, I have no problem with the suggestion that it might not have been a suicide bomber. However, I know someone who has colleagues in Manchester A and E departments, whom I trust, and who has relayed that there were scores of young people treated for shrapnel wounds that night. So personally, I am convinced of that much.
            Aside from that, the dodgy shenanegans of a dismissed doctor in Syria is somewhat different in scope to the many many accounts and social media entries by medical/ ambulance staff who worked the aftermath of the Manchester Arena bomb. If we can uncover the lies of one doctor a thousand miles away in Syria, what chance would a covert op have of keeping the wraps on dozens of doctors, nurses and paramedics right here in the UK where victims have families and friends and colleagues? It is very hard to fake someone’s death (or their existence !) in this country, -in a war zone overseas, it is different, so I am very skeptical, though I confess that I have not looked at the accusations of fakery at, say, Westminster Bridge. And saying that, it seems that there are crisis actors employed at some of these scenes, for reasons that do not make immediate sense to me.
            I am tempted to think that they are there to confuse and seed speculation and rumour, thereby clouding the waters for those who are genuine in asking questions. Once theorists start to suggest that ‘people didn’t die’ and such, a lot of readers are immediately appalled and turn away.
            Secker (again) makes this point well in his work on 7/7, pulling apart some of the unofficial aswell as the official theory, that he speculates may have been seeded as ‘smoke screens’ by intelligence agents.

            To be honest I think the same of Judy Wood’s work that is endorsed by some on this thread.
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msq_eXyA0cA

          • Clark

            But Mog, your acquaintance’s colleagues in Manchester A and E departments are just riding the government gravy train, saying what the government tells them to say, for the sake of an easy life – if YOU aren’t an agent, of course…

            Anyone can play this game, at any time.

          • Clark

            Fire-fighters, paramedics, doctors, nurses, scientists, engineers, journalists – the prevailing narrative on this thread repeatedly condemns the vast majority of these as dupes, government stooges, accessories to murder, hiding truths that they know for the sake of their salary, and no one ever speaks out except me.

          • Clark

            Police. I should add police officers to my list above, because the vast majority of them are also just ordinary people doing a challenging and often dangerous job, too.

            I should also apologise. I have become very frustrated on this thread, and permitted myself to sometimes state things too extremely. But I find the conspirology mindset elitist in its peculiar way; its readiness to condemn ordinary people as dupes and conspirators, and its refusal to accept even the existence of such a mode of thought.

          • mog

            Don’t see where you are going with this Clark.

            You disagree with a lot that is written here. That is fine with me.
            Yes people get paranoid, people believe some very speculative things, we don’t know the real identities of everyone who writes on these forums. So ? I don’t see any of that as confirmation that theorizing about conspiracies is irrational per se.
            The key for me is that (a) only public bodies mandated to resolve conflicting accounts (courts, the academy etc.) stand a chance of resolving evidential disputes, (b) we are not such a body, (c) we will never resolve 911 on Craig’s blog page, (d) maybe try and accept that and stop trying to be some arbiter of truth, instead share opinion, provide a link and make your case.

          • Clark

            ‘Interesting no one has knocked any of this!!!!!
            Maybe the cat’s got their typing fingers!!
            But to be fair, ‘coincidences do happen’, but to this extent?
            So, there is a wise old saying, ‘Let sleeping dogs lie’; perhaps we need to add another new saying, ‘Let dogs running off with their tails between their legs escape unhindered’!’

            In other words:

            ‘I am victorious. May my narrative stand unopposed, so that I may tell you what is true and what is false’

            Does not every tin-pot dictator say the same?

          • Clark

            ‘Secker (again) makes this point well in his work on 7/7, pulling apart some of the unofficial aswell as the official theory, that he speculates may have been seeded as ‘smoke screens’ by intelligence agents.’

            There it is again; any deception or misinformation only comes from “The Government”. The echo-chamber of conspiracy theorists contributes not a jot; it’s all “seeded as ‘smoke screens’ by intelligence agents”.

            The case I’m making is that there are people who think in this identifiable way, the linguistic convention is to refer to them as “conspiracy theorists”, they cooperate to drive dissenters from the discussion, and their efforts corrupt the infosphere. Some supporting links are gathered here:

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

          • mog

            No Clark, I disagree.
            You inserted the ‘only’.
            Secker is careful to say when he is speculating and when he is stating something that he regards evidentially sound.
            What is wrong with speculation, if it is admitted as such? (Especially if there is evidence that what is being speculated is known to have happened in similar circumstances in the past).
            I have not discounted the effect of echo chambers, I only dispute that the phenomenon is unique to those who are theorizing about government conspiracies.
            In think you are putting up a straw man and shooting it down.
            The ‘convention’ using ‘conspiracy theorist’ in this context specific way, has a history that must, I am sure have been relayed to you.
            Maybe people who you see as ganging up, are just weighing in with their opinions that all happen to challenge yours.
            I stick to my guns, wikipedia be damned.
            I see, on occasion, government accounts, mainstream media accounts, alt media stories, academic studies, religionists, atheists, 911 truthers, 911 debunkers, people from all walks of life playing fast and loose with reason and evidence. This is not specific to theories about government conspiracy, it’s just what people do.

          • Paul Barbara

            @ Clark August 9, 2017 at 23:17
            Why not just tell me (and other commenters/readers of this blog) what you think of the ‘light pole through the windscreen’ baloney, instead of trying to disrupt genuine debate?
            If I had written the Manchester comment to you instead of Mog, all hell would have broken loose.
            Mog, on the other hand, didn’t get his knickers in a twist, and simply answered in a positive way, stating his case (and I agree with him); no fireworks or thunder and lightning.

          • Clark

            Paul, I’m not discussing the light pole because it is a change of subject from the more important matter that I’m discussing with Mog. I’m discussing corruption of the informational environment due to conspirology, which bears upon absolutely everything discussed on this thread. You, as a conspirologist, of course seem to be trying to shut down that discussion by diverting it onto the detail of a single street lamp.

            It’s the same old pattern over and over again. You have a selected photo, or a few seconds of video or even a single frame extracted from a video, or a six word selective quote, and you hammer incessantly on these tiny details to establish your credentials to pronounce about structural engineering, virology and immunisation, climatology, oncology; in fact, just about anything. And all the world are dupes or stooges, and only conspiracy theorists can be trusted about anything.

            Sorry, it’s just not good enough. Some basic rules about assessment of evidence need to be established before any progress can be made.

          • John Goss

            The light pole issue was being discussed long before Clark’s return. Don’t be bullied into discussing something else just because a discussion with Mog is perceived by one to be more important, even though it detracts from the discussion we were having before about the light poles. It is critical that this issue is kept in the limelight because there is quite clearly something not just wrong but very wrong with the Pentagon story about a passenger plane creating a hole in the Pentagon without leaving any detritus or aircraft parts anywhere, with no video evidence from the most highly secure military centre in the world.

      • mog

        @Clark
        Got to go now.
        I want to say that I agree with you as much as that there is a problem in 911 truth research. There is spuriousness and bad reasoning and an echo chamber. I don’t attribute it all to ‘cognitive infiltration’, although I don’t rule it out. In fact, the whole idea of seeding red herrings woould only work if there are ordinary people out there who are susceptible to amplifing highly speculative and diversionary theories. You yourself have said that you think the demolition hypothesis ‘a psyop’ to dissuade investigation of other elements of 911. I disagree, but I am still interested in your arguments against CD, even though I am not persuaded by them.
        We cannot though lump things together and create a mental no-go zone around government conspiracies. In wider discourse, this has got to stop, and it seems that as a tactic, it is running out of steam.
        There is no easy way round this. I like what Chris Watson says here (from 1.30)
        https://vimeo.com/67967592

        • Clark

          “…the whole idea of seeding red herrings woould only work if there are ordinary people out there who are susceptible to amplifing highly speculative and diversionary theories”

          Thanks. That’s exactly the point I’ve been trying to make. Conspirology corrupts the infosphere and makes intelligent discussion nearly impossible.

          “You yourself have said that you think the demolition hypothesis ‘a psyop’ to dissuade investigation of other elements of 911.”

          I think it’s not impossible but more importantly, I think it’s a potential conspiracy theory that consistently gets ignored by conspiracy theorists. Conspiracy theorists are unconsciously very selective; they only amplify theories that would result in further amplification. A theory like this one, which would promote caution, is almost universally dismissed. Indeed, thanks for remembering it!

          I suspect that Twin Tower demolition theory could well have been seeded, but by the New York building racket (which may include Silverstein and Trump) to distract from the weak construction of the Twin Towers. Twin Tower demolition theory was recently promoted by a Saudi lawyer in the Saudi press. The motivations are obvious; it’s simple opportunism, jumping onto a bandwagon, but the conspiracy theorists’ mindset always assumes a monolithic, almost omnipotent enemy, all working together towards some covert but well defined objective, and usually referred to simply as “the government”…

          “We cannot though lump things together and create a mental no-go zone around government conspiracies”

          …and there it is again; the assumption is nearly always of government conspiracies – why? In fact global development is at a crux point, with major corporations and financial concerns, through globalisation, achieving greater power than most national governments, yet the conspirology finger points consistently at some ill-defined entity called “the government”. I think this says more about the conspirology mindset and its reaction to unwarranted but routine secrecy by the authorities than anything else.

          I’m not trying to shut down examination of government. I’m saying the discussion is too narrow; that the conspirology mindset tends to dominate, thereby inadvertently protecting wider and more diverse powers from examination.

          • mog

            Conspirology corrupts the infosphere and makes intelligent discussion nearly impossible.
            If you had written that ‘bad reasoning’ or ‘excessive-speculation-posing-as-fact’ were corrupting the infosphere I would agree.
            We haven’t been clear what ‘conspirology’ means, but to me it suggests at least some reference to government agencies or government actors. You ask, the assumption is nearly always of government conspiracies – why? Is it not because, in our time, sovereign power lies with national governments? It is governments that, supposedly, are our guardians, our surrogate parents projected onto the wider world. It is they (the fairy tale goes) who are supposed to take our taxes and protect us from criminality. So the notion that they are prepared to kill us and lie about it provokes strong reactions of both denial and obsessive inquiry. Those in government are under suspicion, but the case has been made, in its current formulation at least since the Warren Report, that such suspicion only goes so far. This is how I see topics like 911, i.e. that the bulk of the critical journalism and academia, which normally devotes its time to pulling apart government narratives, basically accepts the government account of 911 at face value. Why? I can only think that there are deep psychological reasons at play, ones about how we all understand our relationship to power and survival.
            Most of the reputable writers on this subject and related ones, avoid reference to the amorphous ‘government were behind it’ -although I have read such statements used widely. Its just a case of who you read, like any subject I would say. I think you are creating questionable categories that suit your argument. Peter Dale Scott for example has a clearly expressed model that still values the analysis of social structures and systems, but which acknowledges that there are ‘trap doors and hidden passages’ within those structures and systems. This makes sense to me, it helps me make sense of the world. Yet I still, depressingly read regular reference to ‘the tin foil hat syndrome’ in the media.

            Finally, the controlled demolition as seeded psyop. Why not? Run with it Clark, see if you can dig any evidence to support the idea and the notion of motive. I have followed the subject for about 12 years, but seen nothing that convinces me that the proponents of the CD idea have anything to do with US government, US oil or military corporations, psychological warfare operations ….but maybe nobody has done the digging?
            Again, it is all about weighing evidence at the end of the day.

          • Clark

            “I have followed the subject for about 12 years, but seen nothing that convinces me that the proponents of the CD idea have anything to do with US government, US oil or military corporations, psychological warfare operations”

            I apologise, but I should point out your conspirology leaning on this; trying to tie such a deception into a grand, unified scheme (though my use of “psyop” possibly provoked that). The New York building Mafia and Saudi Arabia have the most to gain from Twin Tower demolition theory. 9/11 would still have been an atrocity and an excuse for war had the buildings burned but not collapsed.

            The spooky collapse of WTC7 is the major motivation behind Twin Tower demolition theory. I suspect that a military demolition team were given orders when it became clear that WTC1 might collapse. If so, I’d dearly like to know who ordered that the demolition be kept secret, and what excuse they came up with.

          • Paul Barbara

            @ Clark August 10, 2017 at 12:56
            Clarke, don’t you understand that at least in the West, Banksters and Corporations CONTROL the government?

          • mog

            I apologise, but I should point out your conspirology leaning on this; trying to tie such a deception into a grand, unified scheme (though my use of “psyop” possibly provoked that).

            No apology necessary Clark, I do not have a problem with ‘grand unified schemes’, or conspirology – only with the implication that conspirology is irrational per se (I think I have said that enough times now). Yeah I guess a psyop to try and seed false ideas into the 911truth movement could, in theory, be launched from any place on earth by private or governmental organisation, or individual. I guess I struggle to see any evidence that the CD idea came into public consciousness through any other route other than American citizens like S Jones, K Ryan, D Chandler, G MacQueen.
            I would be interested to read of evidence that suggested otherwise.

          • Paul Barbara

            @ mog August 10, 2017 at 17:26
            I have an Irish friend who has a friend who used to be in the IRA; he says as soon as the event occurred, he knew it was controlled demolition.
            The leading Dutch demolition expert Danny Jowenko knew as soon as the video of WTC 7 was shown to him, that it was, incontrovertibly, controlled demolition. That was BEFORE he knew anything about Bldg. 7, or that the video was from 9/11. Danny Jowenko died in an extremely suspicious ‘one car’ crash, a few days after his name had been brought up by Press TV: ‘Phone Call With Danny Jowenko- Died 3 days latter After PressTv interview’: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtbRd6gzFWk

            ‘#911Truth WTFact #31: Demolition Expert Danny Jowenko Dies In One Car “Accident”:
            http://wtfrly.com/2013/08/12/911truth-wtfact-31-demolition-expert-danny-jowenko-dies-in-one-car-accident/#.WYygnlWGOM8

            ”……Jowenko gained further notoriety when former Director of Studies at the US Army War College, Dr. Alan Sabrosky, said in a radio interview in 2010, that his skepticism of the official 911 story was prompted by Jowenko’s testimony. Jowenko’s death comes three days after Sabrosky gave an exclusive interview to PressTV in which he again reiterated his belief, which he says is common knowledge in some intelligence circles, that elements within both the CIA and Israeli Mossad planned 911. Dr. Sabrosky holds the General of the Army Douglas MacArthur Chair of Research at US Army War College.

            He holds that the attacks were planned and executed in order to achieve dovetailing foreign policy goals, foremost the invasion and Balkanization of Iraq. Sabrosky says this has long been a goal among “Neo-conservatives” associated with the think-tank Project for a New American Century (PNAC.)……’

            Barry Jennings died two days before the release of the NIST Final Report – it is inevitable he would have been inundated with requests to comment on it from Truthers – VERY convenient for the PTB.

            There are many others who have ‘died’ or been ‘suicided’ or ‘had accidents’ who knew, or had gleaned, too much knowledge of 9/11, as they have indeed with many other ‘Deep State’ shenanigans.

  • Paul Barbara

    I was very impressed by the original ‘Loose Change’, also by ‘Loose Change 2’ and ‘Loose Change: Final Cut’. Indeed I made 100’s of copies which I gave out (of that and others, including Jimmy Walters’ ‘Confronting the Evidence’.
    I stopped distributing the ‘Loose Change’ video after ‘Screw Loose Change’ came out, not because I believed they were right, but because at that time I did not have enough knowledge (or time, as I was working) to debunk the SLC debunkers.
    Also, there were plenty of new videos coming out, so I distributed them instead.
    Anyway, I was thinking yesterday that a lot of commenters on here would learn a lot from ‘Loose Change’, so I decided I would take a very belated look at ‘Screw Loose Change’, as I reckoned I would now be able to handle there debunking.
    I started watching their videos, and realised that though it would take a long time, I shouldn’t have any (or at least, many) problems.
    But I really wanted their arguments in written format, quicker and easier to deal with, so I left off watching temporarily and went back to searching for written stuff – and I think I hit the jackpot, with:
    ‘The Trapping of Screw Loose Change’: http://www.911truth.org/trapping-screw-loose-change/
    Even that will take a while to get through.
    In the interim, I offer up ‘Loose Change 2nd Edition’: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSdGqX-usSI (I hour 20 mins)
    (I still like the original as well; its easy to find if any one wants to watch it) and ‘Loose Change Final Cut – Full Length’: https://vimeo.com/35332409 (2 hours)
    Gorge yourself on good stuff; I cut my 9/11 teeth on ‘Confronting the Evidence’ and ‘Loose Change’ (I believed the ‘Official Narrative till 2004!!!).

    • mog

      Interesting to re-visit some of that.
      When I did some cursory research years back, I found the circle of ‘debunkers’ to be remarkably small. ‘JamesB’ for example was one of two people who basically ran ‘Screw Loose Change’, he was also the major contributor to the psuedo journal ‘The Journal of Debunking 911 ‘, and was on the ‘review board’ of 911Myths website.
      I don’t know who JamesB is, but I bet he is involved in the anonymous ‘debunking911’ website aswell because it so closely follows the format of the other sites. That list comprises most of the online english language debunking websites (certainly as was eight or nine years ago).
      A favourite of mine is the discovery of an article about thermite demolition techniques from a 1935 edition of Popular Mechanics, that rather awkwardly (for them) debunked their statement that thermite could not be used effectively for demolition:

      http://911blogger.com/news/2011-08-25/skyride-tower-felled-melting-steel-legs

      Griffin’s ‘Debunking 911 Debunking’ is the thing to read in my opinion.

      • Paul Barbara

        @ mog August 10, 2017 at 09:29
        But nanothermite/mate is actually classed as a high explosive.
        I’m almost sure I have Griffin’s ‘Debunking 911 Debunking’, I just never got around to readin it, figuring I new enough already. I’ll have to try to find it. I’ve got about four of his books, and have met him, I believe several times.

        • Kempe

          Who by? Nano thermite only has a detonation speed of 895 m/s well below that of a true high explosive such as TNT (6,900 m/s).

          As usual it’s what is left out of the Skyride demolition by truthers which is crucial and that’s that it took 42 seconds from ignition to collapse so thermite, nano or not, can’t explain the alleged free fall demolition of the WTC. In fact using that as guide it would’ve taken 77 minutes for each of the towers to collapse!

          http://archives.chicagotribune.com/1935/08/31/page/1/article/100-000-see-last-tower-of-sky-ride-fall/

          Furthermore the Skyride tower had four legs and it required 1,500 lbs of thermite to bring down. By rough calculation it would’ve required 4,500 tons of thermite to cut through just the 244 outer columns on each of the 110 floors of each tower. An impossible amount to sneak in unobserved.

          • mog

            I am sure that I have read more than once on this forum people citing research papers that clearly make the case that nanothermite is classed as a high explosive. (I believe even Wikipedia states it is explosive). Yet Kempe still refutes this.
            Here are links to ten technical journal articles that state as such:
            http://911blogger.com/news/2011-06-20/explosive-nature-nanothermite
            As I understand it, high explosives produce shock waves that are supersonic, and nanothermite has been recorded as having a reaction front of over 1500 m/s. Not the 8000m/s that materials like RDX exhibit, but it is still a very very fast reaction releasing huge amounts of energy in an instant.
            How long would it take to cut huge steel box columns ? I am not qualified to know. I would say it certainly can cut them, and therefore be used as part of a demolition (which PM denied).
            The 911 researchers who have drawn our attention to thermitic materials hypothesis have made their position clear that their evidence of nanothermite/thermate being part of the WTC event does not lead them to a firm conclusion of how it was used. (You wouldn’t know this from comments like Kempe’s). As ‘matches’, as incendiaries, as column cutting devices prior to the main detonation….etc.
            Kempe conflates regular thermite and nano composites which are in a whole different category in terms of reactivity, and also can contain other compounds that are documented to add a pressure element to the explosion.
            The crude comparison regarding times and masses in the 1935 tower demolition ignores so many variables it is effectively no use to the argument.
            Still with ‘the Truthers’ on this one personally.

          • Nikko

            So are you telling us that if 4500 tons of thermite would take 77 minutes to collapse each tower, gravity alone managed it in about 12 seconds?

          • mog

            @ Nikko

            I think Kempe imagines one column being severed at a time, one after another.

            I remember tying fuses of french bangers together as a kid so that they would go off at the same time. I guess Kempe hasn’t thought of that though….?

          • Kempe

            If you can prove nanothermite is a high explosive you could’ve won $1,000. As nobody did it still remains unclaimed.

            http://www.serendipity.li/wot/how_can_nanothermite_be_explosive.htm

            I was working on the premise of 42 seconds for each floor, all the supporting columns being cut through simultaneously floor by floor which is what we’re told by the “truth movement” must’ve happened for the buildings to have collapsed the way they did. It’s a crude calculation I agree but the main point is and always is that demolition by thermite/nanothermite would’ve been too slow.

          • Nikko

            Discussion of the explosiveness of nano thermite is a diversion. Whatever it was that brought down the Towers did it in 12 seconds or so, breaking the structures into small pieces along the way and ejecting them sideways with great force. Gravity alone is not able to do that so it had to have some help. Nano thermite could have been part of that help.

          • mog

            Kempe, I am sorry but I will go with the government research paper:
            https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/307362.pdf
            If Hightower disagrees, he could publish in a peer reviewed journal and ‘win the day’ (instead of a gimmicky $1000). He won’t because he knows he is wrong. If he had cited the Harrit paper on thermitic materials found in the dust at WTC it includes reference to the LLNL paper amongst others that demonstrates that – as Wikipedia states, ‘Super-thermites are generally developed for military use, propellants, explosives…’
            Ain’t peer review great.

          • mog

            @Nikko
            Discussion of the explosiveness of nano thermite is a diversion. Whatever it was that brought down the Towers did it in 12 seconds or so, breaking the structures into small pieces along the way and ejecting them sideways with great force. Gravity alone is not able to do that so it had to have some help. Nano thermite could have been part of that help.
            Seeing as nobody who has led the research has claimed they know how the red-grey energetic materials were used at WTC, I agree, it is a straw man to dispute their explosive properties. What is important in that regard is that if they are super thermite (and I have not read a journal paper showing otherwise), we must ask, ‘What is it doing in the dust? Who could have made it?’ These questions would not be a distraction, they would be very relevant in the non-existent-independent-inquiry-that-will-never-happen.

          • Paul Barbara

            @ Kempe August 11, 2017 at 15:35

            Ah, youv’e resurfaced. I notice you haven’t replied to mi comment, which I put up as you requested proof:
            Paul Barbara
            August 8, 2017 at 00:18
            @ Kempe

            ‘Two issues: you wanted info about the Syrian ‘boy in the ambulance’ hoax – here it is (there are other sites as well):
            ‘FAKE NEWS BUSTED: Iconic Syrian Boy Had Makeup On, Father Speaks’:
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3yaEgM1vPY
            Safis?
            And needless to say, I am still awaiting your link to the non-existent ‘arrest’ of Louisa Ortega….
            I notice there are a few others waiting for answers from you.’

            ‘…Nano thermite only has a detonation speed of 895 m/s well below that of a true high explosive such as TNT (6,900 m/s)….’
            Ah but:
            ‘…The team tested the combustion in a shock tube studded with optical fibers and pressure sensors to measure the combustion wave speed. They found that the nano composites could generate combustion waves with velocities ranging from 1500 to 2300 meters per second, which is in the Mach 3 range…..’
            https://phys.org/news/2008-01-nanoparticles-supersonic-cancer.html

            (Hightower’s ‘challenge’ says: ‘…Find and document peer reviewed scientific research that demonstrates that a gas generating nanothermite (GGNT) based upon iron (III) oxide (Fe2O3) and aluminum (Al), where the gas generating chemical added to the nanothermite is not itself a high explosive, can be made to be a high explosive with at least a detonation velocity of 2000 m/s. The author of this paper will donate $100 for every 1000 m/s of detonation velocity that can be documented, the donation not to exceed $1,000….’
            I don’t know about you, but where I went to school, 2,300 ms is more than 2,000 ms, and is also more than 2 1/2 times your (? – as usual you give no link) figure of 895 ms.

            ‘…….Below are ten references to the fact that nanothermites can be made to be explosive.
            https://phys.org/news/2008-01-nanoparticles-supersonic-cancer.html
            1. This 2004 paper from Lawrence Livermore Labs is quite clear about nanothermites being –
            “explosive composites based on thermite reactions.”
            It begins: “We have developed a new method of making nanostructured energetic materials, specifically explosives…using sol-gel chemistry.”
            https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/307362.pdf
            2. This online article entitled “NanoScale Chemistry Yields Better Explosives” discusses the procedure by which sol-gel nanothermites are made and gives a nice TEM image of a nanothermite. https://www.llnl.gov/str/RSimpson.html
            3. This US Department of Defense journal from Spring, 2002 describes how:
            “All of the military services and some DOE and academic laboratories have active R&D programs aimed at exploiting the unique properties of nanomaterials that have potential to be used in energetic formulations for advanced explosives.”
            It clarifies that –
            [Nanothermite properties] “include energy output that is 2x that of high explosives” and “As sol-gel materials and methodology advances, there are a number of possible application areas that are envisioned [including] high-power, high-energy composite explosives.
            http://ammtiac.alionscience.com/pdf/AMPQ6_1ART06.pdf
            4. A high explosive creates a shockwave that always travels at high, supersonic velocity from the point of origin. This paper describes how –
            “the reaction of the low density nanothermite composite leads to a fast propagating combustion, generating shock waves with Mach numbers up to 3.”
            http://apl.aip.org/applab/v91/i24/p243109_s1?isAuthorized=no%20
            5. In this paper, former NIST employee Michael Zachariah discusses –
            “developing an oxidizer matrix for reaction with nano-aluminum [i.e. nanothermite] for energy intensive applications involving explosives and propellants…”.
            http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/cm034740t
            6. This article helps us understand how the military has been leveraging the potential explosive power of nanoenergetic compounds, specifically nanothermites. It describes a –
            “new class of weaponry that uses energy-packed nanometals to create powerful, compact bombs.” Purdue professor Steven Son, who has become a leading expert on nanothermites, goes on to say that “Superthermites can increase the (chemical) reaction time by a thousand times…resulting in a very rapid reactive wave…used in many applications, including…explosive devices.” The article says that such nanoenergetics enable “building more lethal weapons such as cave-buster bombs that have several times the detonation force of conventional bombs.”
            http://www.technologyreview.com/NanoTech/14105/?a=f
            7. Unlike some energetic materials, nanothermites are “tunable”, meaning the “ignition sensitivity thresholds, reaction rate, and pressure generation can be tailored to have a wide range of values.” Explosives generate pressure, as do nanothermites tuned to do just that.
            http://aiche.confex.com/aiche/2008/techprogram/P128319.HTM
            8. This conference paper states that –
            “Nanoenergetic thermite materials release energy much faster than conventional energetic materials and have various potential military applications such as… explosives. They are likely to become the next-generation explosive materials.”
            http://aiche.confex.com/aiche/2008/techprogram/P131370.HTM
            9. This paper from the US Army describes how:
            “These tunable nanoenergetic materials will be useful for various applications such as high-temperature non-detonable gas generators, adaptable flares, green primers for propellants and explosives, high power/energy explosives.
            http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA481290&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf
            10. Even Wikipedia knows that nanothermite is used for explosive applications.
            Nanothermites “are generally developed for military use, propellants, explosives, and pyrotechnics. Because of their highly increased reaction rate, nanosized thermitic materials are being researched by the U.S. military with the aim of developing new types of bombs that are several times more powerful than conventional explosives.”……’
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nano-thermite

            I know I have seen a government document classing nanothermite as an High Explosive, but I’ve tried to find it again and can’t.

            Oh, yes, and Hightower’s challenge is out of time.

            And don’t forget Syrian ambulance boy Omran, and Louisa Ortega (which jail was she sent to???).

  • mog

    I am not sure (-not having read all the comments on this thread) whether anyone has actually offered a concerted response to Craig’s blog post of seven years ago, the one that sits atop this page. Regardless, I thought I would have a go, even if it is restating a criticism. I wonder if Craig has read any (many) of the 8000 comments, has he learned anything, has his opinion changed at all in the past 7 years?

    The second paragraph of the blog post lays out Craig’s general opinion on the matter of 911 and the critical perspectives that have sought to test the official narrative of what happened. At the time of writing, both the 911 Commission Report (which essentially is the government endorsed account) and the criticisms of it, had circulated widely for at least five years. So we must assume that Craig had had time to look into the matter and offer a considered opinion.
    That opinion can be summarised as ‘I do not believe that the US government, or any of its agencies’ or ‘any group I can think of – even Blackwater’ were ‘responsible’ for 911. He makes the case that someone in those mentioned groupings of people would have objected to killing so many Americans and would have revealed the plot (inferring that racial or nationalistic allegiances would play too heavily on their consciences).

    Craig doesn’t mention the effectiveness of compartmentalisation in this stated ‘belief’, whereby, in theory at least, a plot involving large numbers of actors can be carried out with the unwitting/ unknowing involvement of many people, but through the planning and oversight over a tiny minority. Threats, bribes, murder, there are ways to keep secrets. ‘Plausible deniability’ and ‘need to know basis only’ are such common concepts that they are conspicuous by their absence from Craig’s account of his ‘belief’. He also doesn’t seem to consider that nefarious perpetrators could, in theory, employ proxies who would have little or no racial or nationalistic allegiances that might get in the way of killing thousands of Americans. Indeed, if Craig had studied even a small cross section of the voluminous literature by 911 sceptics, he would know that this precise hypothesis is proposed by many researchers. Could it be that US groups (or individuals within groups?) might have been ‘involved’ if not wholly ‘responsible’? Craig’s phrasing seems to create a limiting dichotomy, one that makes little sense to anyone who has looked deeply into the subject. It implies that 911 was either perpetrated by ‘terrorists’ or was ‘an inside job’, whereas Craig knows as well as anyone that the boundaries between the deep state and a group like Al Qaeda are very blurred to say the least.

    The next four paragraphs concern one aspect of 911 – admittedly an aspect that has come to dominate a majority of discourse on the subject – that of the controlled demolition hypothesis. So paragraph three is a classic straw man argument. Nobody has seriously suggested that demolition charges sufficient to bring down the Twin Towers were planted in a single night. One has to wonder at the seriousness of Craig’s stance on the subject if he makes arguments as bad as this.

    Paragraph four puts forward the argument that the kinetic energy of the planes’ impacts was sufficient to bring down the Twin Towers and that the kinetic energy of the falling towers was sufficient to weaken WTC7 to the point of collapse. Craig is pretty much out on a limb here as the official NIST reports attribute the collapse initiation of the Towers and that of WTC7 primarily to the weakening effects of fires. So we have to wonder, why bring the subject up if he is not endorsing the official explanation, is promoting a theory unique to himself and has not read anything about it in earnest several years after the official reports have been published?

    The next two paragraphs suggest that the WTC complex was badly built, and more so, that corruption to the point of reckless endangerment is ‘extremely common’ in the construction of high rise buildings. Presumably, in Craig’s mind, most of them are therefore unsafe for human use. He gives one example of Ronan Point that exploded due to a gas leak some fifty years ago, where a corner (in Craig’s parlance ‘a whole side’) of the building collapsed. The evidence to support such a sweeping claim about the world’s buildings is ‘a private speculation’. Why hasn’t this been made public we might ask, to which Craig pre-empts with a comment that this is the ‘sort of sordid thing you might not want too deeply investigated in the event of a national tragedy.’ Perhaps ‘private speculation’ is not the kind of evidence that holds much water in the event of a national tragedy? Perhaps the shoddiness of a building with a design claim that it would withstand commercial aircraft impacts would be of massive interest precisely at the time of a national tragedy? What about not in the event of a national tragedy- is there no call to investigate most buildings at other times if so many are shoddily built?
    This is both unbelievable and nonsensical.

    Paragraph seven brings an admission from Craig that there has likely been a cover up in the 911 story, as the Pentagon events ‘puzzle’ him. He is somewhat ambivalent, and says that there is ‘not the conclusive film and photographic evidence’ -which might be more accurately written as ‘the conclusive film and photographic evidence that we can be confident exists, has been withheld from any public scrutiny’. Craig points out the incongruity of the aircraft’s flight pattern and the skills of a ‘non-professional pilot’, which again might have mentioned that flight 77 was flown not by a ‘non-professional pilot’ but effectively by a non-pilot.
    Craig then teases us with a statement that he can imagine scenarios where the truth of the Pentagon attack is deliberately concealed, but at the same time that there is no reason to believe that ‘the US government or Dick Cheney was behind the attack.’ Assuming Craig is being true to his imagination, it would be great to hear what those scenarios might be. Would any of them suggest foreknowledge of the attacks? Would any of those scenarios perhaps call out for further investigation of the alleged massive defence and intelligence failure that we are told were so key to the success of the plot? Does any of it matter ? Do transparency, accountability and open justice not have any baring on the controversy of 911?
    We are left to guess.

    The concluding chapter makes the case that 911 was ‘blowback’ from once CIA sponsored jihadis, ‘spawned’ in Saudi Arabia. Strangely, Craig makes the point that the Saudis were particularly close to those around the Bush dynasty, thereby begging the question, ‘If the plot was ‘spawned’ by actors in the Saudi state, might that not, in some way, implicate US political elites?’ Not to Craig obviously, for him it’s not even a question worth exploring. We could of course add to that the many close links between US intelligence actors and the Saudis who we know were involved in the plot, and ask ‘If ‘blowback’ keeps happening and its effect is to further an explicit program laid out by those ‘attacked’, what does ‘blowback’ actually mean’? We can go on from there.
    Despite Craig’s penultimate sentence where he contradicts his first statement about the impossibility of keeping large plots secret, by saying that he can imagine ‘the whole spectrum of surveillance, penetration and agent provocateur activity by any number of possible actors’, we are encouraged to in no way think any further about this topic, or ask questions except in a specially quarantined zone where it can be relegated to the status of a freak show, divorced from any context or consequences.

    We either have a full and accurate account of 911 or we don’t. If on the one hand, one reveals ignorance and indifference to the subject of what actually happened, and on the other admit that the evidence suggests a cover up of some sort, can one really make the case that ‘911 was blowback’ or that ‘911 was not a false flag’, or any conclusion of any kind? How do you know? To me that smacks of deep intellectual dishonesty. It is basically saying ‘this is what I believe because this is what I believe’.

    Craig’s blog post typifies so much of the writing about the 911 events that I have read authored by generally honest writers who are clearly concerned about the consequences of what happened that day. The usual standards of probing inquiry, careful argument and the recognition of the importance of an open adversarial approach to controversial subject matter gets thrown out the window. In its place are ‘beliefs’, logical fallacies, ‘private speculations’ and ‘imagination’ and above all, an unwillingness to explore a deeply discomforting hypothesis.

    • Clark

      Mog, I think you should rewrite this after consideration of the following.

      Consider Craig’s experience of working within a governmental system. If he had privately participated in a conspiracy to bring about some event, from our point of view, on the outside, it would look like a “government conspiracy”, but Craig would know that he had been using his position to further an end that was not governmental policy.

      In that light, now reconsider Craig’s statement; “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”.

      Craig explicitly rules out only false flag and controlled demolition. I think he’s wrong in ruling out demolition of Building 7, but 7’s collapse didn’t contribute to the mass murder and thus would be much easier to cover up. He’s right to rule out Twin Tower demolition theory because it’s just silly; I won’t repeat all that here.

      He’s very very right to rule out false flag. The flag attributed to 9/11 by the many official investigations is not entirely clear, but it’s clearly something Saudi. But anything Saudi is the least preferable flag from the neocon / Bush administration’s point of view. If 9/11 were their plot, they’d have ensured that it implicated Iran, Syria, Libya, or any other member of their “Axis of Evil”. They’d have done anything to keep the spotlight away from Saudi Arabia.

      And here we have the motivation for the torture programme. Any honest investigation was going to implicate the country that guarantees supply of liquid fuel to the US, and which for fifty years has supplied indoctrinated “religious” extremists to be sent against pan-Arab nationalism and the USSR-then-Russia. False confessions were needed fast, to diversify the blame from Saudi / Wahabbism to Islam in general, and that’s precisely what they did:

      ‘“Just tell me the right answer. Is it good to say yes or to say no?” I asked. At that point I hoped I was involved in something so I could admit to it and relieve myself of writing about every practicing Muslim I ever met, and every Islamic organisation I ever heard of. It would have been much easier to admit to a true crime and say that’s that’

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

      • mog

        If he had privately participated in a conspiracy to bring about some event, from our point of view, on the outside, it would look like a “government conspiracy”, but Craig would know that he had been using his position to further an end that was not governmental policy.
        No, I disagree. The consistent line from the more discerning 911 researchers has not been to view 911 as a ‘government conspiracy’, i.e. a conspiracy hatched from within government in a way analogous to the way that government might plan a motorway or a tax cut. Detractors have always put this up as a straw man argument – ‘How could a government (an organisation of thousands of people and an established system of checks, balances and accountability) plan something like 911 and keep it quiet?’. Most researchers I have read suggest that 911 plot looks to have involved actors who are employed by or connected to government agencies, as well as people outside the government system. Scott writes about ‘the semi-permeable membrane at the edge of the deep state’. A ‘private intelligence network’ is a phrase often used. This might conceivably involve actors in other governments.
        The flag attributed to 9/11 by the many official investigations is not entirely clear
        I thought it was very clear that the official narrative of 911 attributes the attacks to a non government terrorist network with a specific name and a named leader. It disputes the involvement of the state of Saudi Arabia. What is more the Neocons have seen little obstacle to achieving their aims, they still supply KSA with loads of arms, they easily inferred blame on Iraq and have tried to connect 911 to Iran on numerous occasions. They have kept the spotlight away from the Saudis, and by extension themselves. Even the 28 pages blew through with hardly any notice. Did Craig (for example) ever mention them?
        False flags don’t particularly need to make pefect sense. It is basically a case of attacking your own people, getting them shit scared, and standing forward as a bold leader. People are irrational, and will not question too much the details. I remember Daniel Hopsicker relating his trip to Florida to dig around the biographies of Atta and the other hijackers there. He was amazed that there were no national press teams doing the same, it was basically just him. Nobody was interested, nobody was asking questions.
        Previously you wrote that you were convinced that the Neocons were deeply involved in the 911 plot, I wonder what has convinced you otherwise.
        Do you think that it might have been a Saudi plot, unbeknownst to the many political elites in Washington who were so very close to them? What is your take on 911?

        • Clark

          To work through this backwards, I have various ‘takes’ (ie. possibilities) on 9/11, plus the big ‘take’ that there is probably much information missing, so I cannot know. My approach to understanding 9/11 is to narrow the range of possibilities. For instance, on the available evidence, it’s impossible to rule out that it was planned by the Bush administration. Maybe they didn’t, but they’ve produced no evidence of that.

          “Previously you wrote that you were convinced that the Neocons were deeply involved in the 911 plot, I wonder what has convinced you otherwise.”

          I have not become convinced otherwise, but there are a range of possibilities. Consider. Say the elite referred to by Russo / Rockerfeller offered the neocons their “new Pearl Harbor”. They didn’t burden the neocons by telling them what would happen or who would do it, only that certain information was needed (timing of war games, for instance), certain rules had to be changed (responsibility for USAF interception orders for instance), and to be ready to exploit the propaganda opportunity (in Afghanistan, for instance). Such an approach would be consistent with the “need to know” principle.

          “I thought it was very clear that the official narrative of 911 attributes the attacks to a non government terrorist network with a specific name and a named leader.”

          Well I’d call that one of the Bush administration’s propaganda lines. I dispute that there is an “official narrative”. Rather, there are multiple reports from investigations by various official bodies, each with their own agenda, plus imposed agendas. NIST and ASCE were keen to protect structural engineers, and as part of the Department of Commerce NIST were fending off public panic about high-rise office buildings. The FBI never charged Osama bin Laden. The CIA wanted no light shone upon State Department collusion with Saudi-oriented extremists. The EPA were leant on to get the financial markets reopened as quickly as possible. The corporate media were as keen to promote war as always, and to support the corporate system (reliant on liquid fuel) which supplies their advertising revenue. Etc etc etc.

          The very concept of a unified “official narrative” is a conspirologists’ misapprehension; the reality is far more complicated than that.

          “No, I disagree. The consistent line from the more discerning 911 researchers…”

          But Craig’s commenters don’t consist mainly of “more discerning 911 researchers”. Rather, he had a problem (to which I contributed) of every thread turning into a heated but pointless discussion of Twin Tower demolition theory. I particularly upset him by splurging a load of such nonsense over a thread about cocoa smallholders in Ghana, a very marginal group with hardly any international support.

          • mog

            Interesting ideas Clark, it is informative to see what you think.
            I cannot say that I have come accross such a theory (or set of theories) on it before.

    • John Goss

      What you say here Mog contains many arguments I have asked myself, arguments which others have asked too. Craig never addresses these issues. I cannot believe that someone with the intelligence and experience of Craig has not considered alternatives to what he wrote as you say seven years ago. I have a theory of my own about this (but it is only speculation I concede).

      A few years back this blog was brought down. My speculation is that the blog was only allowed to resurface with provisos that certain issues could not be freely discussed, 9/11 being one of them. This would account for why none of us can “ask questions except in a specially quarantined zone where it can be relegated to the status of a freak show, divorced from any context or consequences.”

      Because 9/11 was the incenduary device used as an excuse for starting almost all 21st century wars it is an issue of immense historical importance. There should be no restriction on its discussion anywhere because it links into every aspect of world affairs. To relegate it to the splendid isolation of this thread does no credit to Craig whatsoever. But then few visit this backwater and we are left with a plethora of official disinformation which has clearly been discredited. If the speculation is correct Craig’s hands are tied. Otherwise I can see no reason why he does not engage on the subject following all the new evidence.

      • mog

        It’s an interesting idea about Craig and this blog.
        I certainly do not regadard him as exceptional in this. As I am sure you would agree, he is not alone among the anti-war commentators in taking such a strange stance on the issue of 911.
        What has freaked me over the years (less so nowadays to be honest) is that Left/ Liberal / Progressive writers treat the subject with such disdain. For them it is little more than something to ridicule, or brush away. People who normally are careful in their arguments, cautious not to employ rhetorical maneuvers and who pull apart opponents’ arguments for just such dishonesty, in the case of 911 turn the full 180 and break down in a crumbled pile of fallacies.

        Did you catch this one? I was looking forward to reading Ulfkotte’s work on CIA penetration of the media, but now he is dead and his book has AWOL:
        http://www.globalresearch.ca/english-translation-of-udo-ulfkottes-bought-journalists-suppressed/5601857
        [NB this is in no way any kind of innuendo regarding Craig !]

        • John Goss

          Ulfkotte appears to be another voice silenced by MSM. If you want a career do not bother about your personal integrity. As he explains:

          “. . . The CIA will find young journalists and mentor them. Suddenly doors will open up, rewards will be given, and before you know it, you owe your entire career to them. That’s essentially how it works.”

          People like Craig, Noam Chomsky and others with a powerful and far-reaching voice have personal integrity and have more than once proved it by their actions. Their stance therefore on 9/11 is surprising. And I agree about the Left/Liberal voice being virtually absent. A member of my pub quiz team will not debate an alternative to the official version of 9/11. I suspect the reason is that nobody wants to believe that the USA in conjunction with Israel would mass-murder its own people for political ends. And that is where any alternative seems to lead.

          • lysias

            Whatever really happened on 9/11, they made sure it was something that they could ridicule as preposterous if anyone suggested it.

        • Paul Barbara

          @ mog August 11, 2017 at 09:18

          Udo Ulfkotte’s book is available on Amazon (in German).
          Gekaufte Journalisten: Wie Politiker, Geheimdienste und Hochfinanz Deutschlands Massenmedien lenken 1 Nov 2014

  • KingofWelshNoir

    Clark, you call the collapse of Building 7 ‘spooky’. Why? The evidence is plain. We have TV footage showing firemen and cops moving people back from the building saying it’s about to blow up. There follows the sound of an explosion and the building collapses into its own footprint, exhibiting the characteristic hallmarks of a controlled demolition, including free-fall descent for some of the collapse. If you saw that on any other day of the year you wouldn’t say it was spooky, you would say they blew the building up.

    It’s only spooky if you don’t accept the evidence of your senses because you don’t like where it leads.

    As for the idea that a secret military team turned up unseen on the day and wired it for a controlled demolition, I’m sorry but that is just too fanciful for words. Do you have any evidence to support this? Do the military even have teams capable of controlled ( as opposed to uncontrolled) demolition? Why would they? Why posit this idea rather than accept that it was wired for demolition before the day? In truth, it hardly matters. If the building was blown up – which you seem to accept – then the official narrative is dead because it couldn’t have been blown up by Al Qaeda.

  • Paul Barbara

    I was at a meeting about Venezuela some three or four weeks ago, hosted by some Communist group.
    There were about 45 people attending.
    I asked if people who believed 9/11 was an ‘Inside Job’ would put there hands up – only 4 or 5 did.
    Stop the War, which came out of the Socialist Workers Party (very heavily infiltrated, I have been told by someone who knows), is particularly blinkered on this. They just point blank refuse to discuss it; but worse, they are also p*ss poor on Syria. I tried to speak to Lindsey German about Roland Dumas’ and Wesley Clark’s statements, and asked why they weren’t on StW’s website. She said ‘They are’ and literally scuttled off before I could say another word.
    These are extremely important, especially Dumas, who says he was told in 2009 by high British officials that Britain was going to overthrow Assad with the use of mercenaries. I’ve informed at least a dozen MP’s, including Jeremy Corbyn, but NO ONE WANTS TO KNOW.

      • Paul Barbara

        @ mog
        August 11, 2017 at 17:29
        Not so much bought into it, as the prats who ‘run’ the Left are calling the shots.
        And they have sold out, indeed been taken over by those who have pledged to ‘control’ every attack against their own ‘good?’ selves.
        Should pass moderation!

    • mog

      @ Paul B
      Also on the same subject of the Left (which I have been somewhat involved with recently), I note that Aaron Bastani and Novaramedia recite the same tropes about 911 scepticism.
      Aaron re-tweeted the other day:
      what is the worst (non sinister, just dumb) thing you’ve overlooked to get with someone fit?For me, it was a solid hour of 9/11 conspiracies

      and added a reply:

      Watching ‘Love Actually’ for a second time at the cinema in 24 hours. Once was bad enough.

      So he seems to endorse the notion that educating yourself about 911 is ‘just dumb’, and as purile as watching a shit film twice just to get into bed with someone.
      Back when Tom Watson was accusing new Labour members of being Trotskyist infiltrators, Aaron posted a video speech accusing Watson of being a ‘tin foil hat conspiracy theorist, like those into 911’ (paraphrased).
      Novaramedia recently published an article written by Matt Broomfield who had covertly infiltrated a far right group’s conference and wrote about what he witnessd there:
      ‘The street thugs feed off the legitimacy of the mainstream, and the mainstream draws its power from the street. It is this logic which unites greasy-haired 9/11 truthers, a faux-erudite Pashtun-speaking white nationalist like Bedford-Turner, and the “Millwall fans in a nearby pub” said to be providing security on the day.
      http://novaramedia.com/2017/07/16/lessons-for-the-anti-fascist-left-from-a-white-supremacist-conference/
      I am not going to dispute the small but ugly seam of anti-semitism within followers of the Truth movement, or the veracity of Broomfield’s reportage revealing the warped minds he encountered that day, but it might be good to at least mention that there are plenty of academics on the Left who dispute 911. It might be honest to clarify that none (to my knowledge) of the academics and professionals who have done the work in questioning 911 have been shown to have anti-semitic views.
      The young are looking to voices like Bastani and outlets like Novara for a new framing of the world ‘out there’. That frame accepts the official narrative of 911 without question. Worse, it renders anyone who does question it an object of ridicule.

      • Paul Barbara

        @ mog August 11, 2017 at 19:37
        Re Bedford -Turner, he is almost certainly an ‘Agent Provocateur’ and agent of the system.
        Tom Watson is an a**hole, trying to take over from good ole’ JC. I went to one of his hustings, gave him pertinent info re Syria, and heard sweet FA in response.
        I actually belong to a group which meets once a month: it has been attacked by an anti-Fascist group, which has caused two of their meetings to have been closed down.
        I am aware that a person I know, prominent in that group, has been widely castigated as a ‘Holocaust Denier’, which he isn’t, he just questions various things about the ‘official narrative’, but I have to admit, he does get very near the mark. My position is – do’n’t go near the Holocaust – end of.

    • KingofWelshNoir

      I’ve come across this a lot in the past, Stop the War and most left-leaning organisations are very hostile to 9/11 truth. I think the explanation is quite straightforward. Fifty years ago the CIA deliberately ‘weaponised’ the term conspiracy theorist to discredit anyone who challenged the official narrative of the JFK assassination. They did a brilliant job and now the term is intellectually toxic, a badge of intellectual shame. In this respect being on the left or right makes no difference. And it includes vast swathes of intellectuals, too, which is ironic. Because one of the most famous intellectuals to publicly doubt the Warren Report was Lord Bertrand Russell.

  • Paul Barbara

    Yet another brave whistleblower bites the dust:
    ‘Former Newspaper Editor Who Exposed CIA Found Dead’: http://yournewswire.com/german-newspaper-editor-exposed-cia-dead/

    Dr Udo Ulfkotte, the former German newspaper editor whose bestselling book exposed how the CIA controls German media, has been found dead.

    Udo Ulfkotte’s book is available on Amazon (in German).
    Gekaufte Journalisten: Wie Politiker, Geheimdienste und Hochfinanz Deutschlands Massenmedien lenken 1 Nov 2014

    Another casualty of the Truth.

    Udo Ulfkotte R.I.P. The world has lost a brave, honest man.
    Heaven has gained a Saint.

  • Bobm

    I am reading Sharon Shoesmith’s Learning from Baby P.
    [I have a variety of motives.]
    Her Chapter on Blame, Fear and Denial reminded me of this thread in ways I had not quite expected.
    “Knowing and not knowing”, reluctance to “think the unthinkable”, “turning a blind eye” are among the themes.
    For anyone who is interested, SS’s book is a remarkably clear and un-self-indulgent analysis of the issues, particularly the socio-political ones, highlighted by Peter Connolly’s case.

  • Paul Barbara

    @ John Goss August 11, 2017 at 08:18
    John, we ought to thank our lucky stars Craig keeps this thread open – it is his blog, and he clearly does not have much interest in 9/11.

    • John Goss

      It is one of a number of forums on 9/11 and I too am pleased it is kept open. It does not detract from the fact that, popular though the subject is among some of us, we are not allowed mention it on other threads. The brave hearts are those who keep this thread open with apposite comments concerning real science and engineering in the face of official lies..

1 113 114 115 116 117 122