The 9/11 Post 11807

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

11,807 thoughts on “The 9/11 Post

1 114 115 116 117 118 134
  • Paul Barbara

    I have emailed the printers of Udo’s book (English version) asking what’s going on.

  • Dave

    One has only to witness the collapse of the three towers to know it was controlled demolition, but as this is evidence of an inside job, its anti-Semitic to say so, so no one wants to say so, because this is deemed a hate crime under laws put in place by those responsible for 9/11. Simples!

      • mog

        Some (probably dubious) polls about what people believe:

        The opinion poll conducted during the summer of 2008 found that 39 percent of respondents in Turkey believe al-Qaeda were responsible. 36 percent said the U.S. government were responsible, 3 percent said Israel and 1 percent named another country. 21 percent said they did not know

        The UK and US :

        A 2011 poll carried out by GfK NOP for the BBC found that 14 percent of Britons and 15 percent of Americans questioned believe the U.S. government was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. 1 in 4 of the 16- to 24-year-olds questioned held this belief

        It is interesting reading down the list. Young Germans and Canadians score higher than many middle eastern countries in doubting the US official story, which surprised me. I think Turkey comes out as most skeptical of this list though.

    • Paul Barbara

      @ Dave August 13, 2017 at 17:52
      Lets get this straight – saying the WTC collapses were controlled demolition is NOT anti-Semitic – it is a judgement of how the WTC buildings came down.
      Are you by any chance trying to ‘muddy the waters’? I think so.
      Saying the WTC buildings were brought down with controlled demolition has SFA relation to the perps, other than it obviously wasn’t a bunch of patsies.
      For our next trick, Dave? Try harder.

      • Dave

        You misunderstood me, Its obvious CIA/Mossad were responsible because only they have the ability and influence to do it and cover up the truth afterwards. And due to this I was just pointing out why many people refuse to acknowledge what’s before their eyes, because those in power, those responsible, the Zionists, will denounce it as anti-Semitic, and have put hate crime laws in place to deal with such an eventuality and ruin more lives. The fact that so many refuse to be intimidated is of course very encouraging.

        • Paul Barbara

          @ Dave August 14, 2017 at 10:41
          I see what you mean, but the arguments pro or con controlled demolition on here don’t revolve around who did it, but on whether it was possible and whether there is any evidence to suggest it was done.
          I agree wholeheartedly that your reasoning is correct as to why many people won’t go for an ‘Inside Job’; most left-wing groups contain quite a few prominent people in their organisation of a ‘certain persuasion’; they are afraid of the obvious implications.

  • Dave

    Their methodology is to make any adverse comments, real or imagined, against a Who a hate crime of anti-Semitism and their new laws allows the crime to be perceived an offence by a third party, aided by the new definition of anti-Semitism. Its draconian and worthy of the old Soviet Union and this is done by one-sided repetition in MSM.

    The only defence is not to deny anti-Semitism, but I can understand why you would instinctively deny the charge, but to accuse your accuser of anti-Semitism. Except the smear is enough to ruin lives and its the Crown Prosecution Service, the Attorney General, a Government Minister who decides who gets prosecuted, or not, in the public interest.

  • mog

    A pretty good overview of the interaction of antisemites, anti-semitic ideas and 911 skepticism:

    [Note that Serendipity website hosts or hosted anti-semitic views, so that makes me less surpirsed that it promotes spuriousness like the Hightower piece which Kempe linked the other day].

    The Israel connections are neatly summarised here by J Raimondo:

    He is careful to allege ‘a connection that has been buried’, rather than outright ‘responsibility’ – which I agree with.
    Personally, I am convinced that the responsibility of 911 does not fall on any one nation state, one nationality, one race or one religion.

    • John Goss

      Your first link Mog can be summed up by:

      “As the author of points out, people may mix Holocaust denial with challenges to the official account of 9/11 out of ignorance, but the result is to discredit these challenges.”

      This is a danger. We, most of us here, are not holocaust deniers, though there may be some revisionists among us. That boils down to figures (the most popular touted being 6 million Jews were gassed or exterminated in German camps). From my point of view it is bad enough that a single person was put to death in a prison camp during WWII. What the exact figure was (is) can never be known. But it cannot be denied that there was a holocaust.

      The clever manipulation of this holocaust has been working against any organisation or person that does not fall into line with New World Order plans. It has been going on for nearly three-quarters of a century. One of the latest manifestations has been the attempt to label Jeremy Corbyn anti-semitic. Wise up everybody.

  • Dave

    Paul @ 10.41

    Rightly there should be 9/11 pick and mix websites for different reasons. Having some only debating what caused the collapse and leaving others to draw the obvious conclusions is good tactics to avoid the accusation of anti-Semitism. Except in practice it doesn’t really because the definition has been changed to include any, real or imagined, criticism of Israel and new “hate crime” laws allow the offence to be a “perceived” offence even by a “third party” such as a well oiled lobby group! And you may recall Cameron denouncing 9/11 truth at the UN as akin to terrorism.

  • James Dickenson

    Is this ‘true’?

    ‘ . . . Four thousand Israelis were expected to have been working at the World Trade Center on 9-11, yet only one was reported to have died at the complex. Based on the Israeli government figure that 4,000 Israelis were expected to have been at the World Trade Center at the time of the attacks, it seems evident that many Israeli Odigo users got the message of warning.” ‘

    • mog

      As far as I can tell it is partly true (as in it was in the papers):

      The ‘hard to believe’ bits for me are that the boss of Odigo said he didn’t know if the warning message had been broadcast on to other Odigo users, which seems unlikely as a messaging service would have easy access to its log of transmitions. And secondly, that the FBI was told the details of the sender and the message itself, but that nothing more was heard of it. Like so much evidence about 911, it just disappeared into the FBI’s ‘X files’.

      I cannot find a source for Bollyn’s claims about ‘4000 employees’ being absent from the WTC complex that day. Bollyn seems to me to be a mixture of a hard working digger of facts and someone willing to exagerate, bend and fabricate information to suit his hypothesis.

      • mog

        That link does work if you copy and paste it into another tab, but if you click on it, it brings up an ‘Error 404’.
        Does anone know why/ how this can happen?

      • Dave

        At a guess I would say the message was forwarded to 4000 subscribers rather than to those specifically employed at the WTC.

    • Kempe

      No it’s more bollox.

      The original story was 4,000 Jews but they seem to have become Israelis to avoid (justifiable) accusations of anti-Semitism. That 8% of the WTC’s occupants would’ve been Israelis is barely credible although it would match the proportion in the NY population generally.

      That no Jews died on 9/11 is yet another myth easily disproved by examining the evidence. In this case the Jewish names on the lists of casualties.

  • Macky

    I have to explain that I don’t follow this thread closely, not through lack of interest, but just going through an extended very busy period lately, so I just skim & post things that catch my eye, and offer apologies in advance if already posted, as perhaps this clip has;

    BTW I recently asked a university lecturer/researcher, who specializes in structural engineering, about the collapse of the Twin Towers & WC7, and was staggered when he said he didn’t know about WC7, as he thought only the twin towers came down that day ! When I pressed him on the free fall physics of the twin towers collapsed, he shrugged it off with “probably due to structural design” !! So that’s what truth seekers are up against, mass public ignorance & lazy “experts” !!

    Re Israeli victims of 911, Wiki lists 5 (2 on planes & 3 in the twin towers), which does seem remarkably low; funny thing I looked this up about two or three years ago, and am sure that Wiki was stating only one Israeli victim back then ! Another thought, seeing as many Israelis are dual US citizens, I wonder how this factors in ?

    • mog

      @ Macky,
      Thanks for the link. The pedantic could rightly point out the misuse of terms and quotes in the clip, but it gets the basic argument accross.

      You say that you rarely visit this thread, so I guess that you are not aware that this aspect of 911 has occupied (I would estimate) over 5000 of the 8000 comments that have appeared here over the past seven years. The dispute has settled to where it was at the very beginning- with one side utterly convinced that the towers could in no way have fallen in the way they did without some process destroying the integrity of the lower structure in a controlled, carefully timed way. The other side are equally adamant that the idea of controlled demolition of the towers is ‘just silly’ and totally unnecessary for explaining what we see in the videos.

      I am through with discussing this topic as it seems to go relentlessly in circles. I have not seen any example of a ‘crush down- crush up’ collapse anywhere, ever, and it is contrary to all my understanding of physics and all my experiences of seeing how physical objects interact.

      The number of engineers, physicists and architects who have put their name forward to make this case are a tiny proportion of the number of those specialists in the world. Yet, the number who are willing to publicly speak in defence of the NIST/ Bazant theory is much smaller. It seems to me to be a kind of taboo, and if you were to in any way press your ‘expert’ for a fuller, substantiated answer, you would see what happens when a taboo is transgressed.

    • Dave

      A good video explaining high school physics, which is informative by answering the collapse theory, but not relevant, because the top bit itself disintegrates before impacting on the bit below and clearly the towers don’t actually collapse but explode into dust at free fall speed.

  • Paul Barbara

    Christopher Bolleyn is releasing a new book shortly: ‘The War on Terror: The Plot to Rule the Middle East’:

    ‘…The government and media have lied to us all along about 9/11. The fabricated story they sold us is the keystone upon which the War on Terror is based. When you grasp the truth about 9/11 the falseness of the wars waged under the pretext of fighting terrorism becomes apparent. 9/11 truth is the key to freeing ourselves from the deception that has been imposed on us all. We need to realize that the controlled media, the most active promoter of the war agenda, will never address 9/11 truth. For this reason we need to be the voice of reason and raise awareness of the deception among our fellow citizens.

    To believe the official myth about 9/11 is to be trapped in a joyless state of mind because joy cannot co-exist with fear and hate. This is why embracing 9/11 truth is essential for our well-being and sanity, as individuals and as a nation. There is immense spiritual value in freeing ourselves from deception and living in truth.

    This is a discussion we need to have. We need to bring this war to an end. Your support can help me print the book and reach more people in this important endeavor….’

    • mog

      Personally, I wouldn’t advertise a book by Bollyn.
      He is regarded by many to be an anti-semite. He has certainly made statements that I would confidantly say would be considered to be antisemitic by most people. He definitely has a history of association with people and publications that are antisemitic.
      Bearing in mind that there are many researchers on the topic who are not surrounded by such criticisms, I would promote their work before Bollyn’s.
      The media love to draw attention to more controversial figures when discussing 911, and to ignore the others. Bollyn, Shayler, Icke, Alex Jones, – these are the names that come to mind for most who are unread with regard to 911, not Griffin, Ryan, Hicks, Hopsicker or Nafeez Ahmed – i,e, the ones who have actually done the solid research.

      Bollyn also has a patchy record with regard to the reliability of his evidence, as previously linked.

      • Paul Barbara

        @ mog August 16, 2017 at 10:47

        We are all fully aware that it is quite easy to get a ‘reputation’ for ‘anti-Semitism’, on the flimsiest of grounds. ‘They’ have actually boasted about it on occasion.
        He was so badly harassed, including having an elbow shattered and being tasered in his own home in front of his family by three police thugs, then charged with ‘resisting arrest’, that he left the States to live in Europe.
        I’ve read quite a few of his articles, and did not come across anything I would regard as ‘anti-Semitic’, and I am sensitive to that subject; that is not to say he has never written anything that could be so classed, of course.

      • Paul Barbara

        @ mog August 16, 2017 at 10:47

        I particularly liked his phrasing: ‘….To believe the official myth about 9/11 is to be trapped in a joyless state of mind because joy cannot co-exist with fear and hate. This is why embracing 9/11 truth is essential for our well-being and sanity, as individuals and as a nation. There is immense spiritual value in freeing ourselves from deception and living in truth.

        This is a discussion we need to have. We need to bring this war to an end. Your support can help me print the book and reach more people in this important endeavor….’
        It really seems to me he wants to get to the truth. Personally, I believe ‘they’ were up to their neck in it (along with traitorous Yanks); and consider, ‘they’ have actually called the USS Liberty survivors ‘anti-Semitic’ for campaigning for a Congressional investigation into the attack on the ‘Liberty’. By ‘they’, of course, I mean certain members, not all.

  • Dave

    To get the full picture you need to read a range of authors, because inevitably some will make a mistake or have their own priorities and I can understand someone wanting to recommend authors with whom they agree or at least wont embarrass them on other issues. But if you fear the charge of anti-Semitism and/or racism you may as well give up and go home now, because it goes with the territory and the response should be to treat your accuser in kind, because if those responsible for 9/11 are calling you anti-Semitic you know the word is being abused. Indeed anecdotally I recall a debate when the Chief Rabbi called Richard Dawkins “anti-Semitic” and Dawkins had a pained and bewildered look on his face. And I thought to myself, don’t be a wimp, call the Rabbi anti-Semitic back!

    • Bobm

      The 9/11 Commission was run by a Neo-con Israeli, Philip Zelikow.
      Which part of this is this in dispute?

      • Paul Barbara

        @ Bobm August 16, 2017 at 23:02
        I wasn’t born yesterday – I’m 74 already (that’s years, not days!).
        We don’t need to point the finger at this stage, we just need to show that the ‘Official Conspiracy Theory’ is a ‘pile of pants’ (I don’t like that expression, but it was one that stuck in my craw when it was addressed to a tortured asylum seeker by some officious c*nt in our ‘Immigration Control’ set-up).
        I am not afraid to call a spade a spade, but ‘horses for courses’, this is not the place.

        • Kempe

          No you need to present a viable alternative theory, one that is scientifically sound and with solid supporting evidence, instead of inventing a series of ever more bizarre and ridiculous fantasies involving holographic planes and death rays.

          • KingofWelshNoir

            Kempe: ‘No you need to present a viable alternative theory…’

            No we don’t. We just have to demonstrate that the official narrative cannot be true. We don’t have to speculate on alternatives.

            The past few times you have posted here I have responded (politely) with two questions for you, ones which I would be most grateful if you would address.

            I don’t know how to post a link to an old comment, so I have repasted the comment at the bottom.

            Please give me your thoughts. If you take the example of the hijacker’s passport found in the rubble of the Twin Towers, it illustrates the thesis well, in my view.

            It is simply impossible for it to have fallen out of the plane, so it must have been planted. The US authorities are not stupid so they know that. But if it had been planted then the official narrative can’t be true because Al Qaeda would hardly plant evidence incriminating themselves if they really did it.

            You only plant evidence to incriminate someone who did not do it. The US authorities know this too, therefore the evidence of this passport, mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report, is enough to show the official narrative is a lie and known to be one and the truth is being covered up.

            This is the crux of it for me. You can – and numerous people have – argue about the Twin Towers till the cows come home and pour themselves a gin and tonic, but why bother when you can so easily show the official narrative is demonstrably false?

            Now, I would greatly appreciate your thoughts on the matter.

            Thank you sir!

            In case you ‘miss’ this question again, I am happy to reassure you that I will be here with it on your next visit to this thread 🙂


            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’


            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

        • Paul Barbara

          @ Kempe August 17, 2017 at 04:29
          So again you’ve resurfaced on here, but left a number of people’s previous replies to you unanswered.
          If you make a point, often attacking someone else’s comments, or asking for further info, at the person responds to you, it is only polite to reply to the response.
          So, I’ll try again, for the 3rd time:

          @ Paul Barbara
          August 12, 2017 at 23:59
          @ Kempe August 11, 2017 at 15:35

          Ah, youv’e resurfaced. I notice you haven’t replied to my 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’:

          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…..’

          (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.

          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.”

          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.
          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.

          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.”

          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…”.

          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.”

          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.

          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.”

          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.

          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.”……’

          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???).

        • Paul Barbara

          @ Kempe August 17, 2017 at 04:29
          Charles Manson was an American, too (Cincinnati). Must be something in the water….

  • Paul Barbara

    ‘Citizens of many U.S. allies trust Putin more than Trump’:

    Not us, of course. We know better than much of the rest of the world, because we’ve got ‘Democracy’ and a ‘Free Press’ – in a pig’s eye (no offence meant, porkers!).
    Similarly, a bigger percentage of many countries citizens believe 9/11 was an ‘Inside Job’ than us.
    The point? A bigger percentage of us have been successfully brainwashed. Well, at least we’re still good at something!

    • Node

      They seek him here, they seek him there.
      His posts are loud, but never fair.
      He will tell you why you’re wrong, but he won’t say what’s right.
      ‘Cause he’s a dedicated follower of NIST.

      Oh yes he is, oh yes he is.
      Oh yes he is, oh yes he is.

    • John Goss

      The purpose of some comment-makers is not to answer tough questions, however politely asked, but to sow seeds of doubt. Engineer Kempe has a history of pro-officialdom going back some years.

      However his contributions on the 9/11 thread have got progressively less in number and increasingly devoid of content. The Beatles probably had someone like Kempe in mind when they wrote and I slightly paraphrase.

      He’s a real nowhere man
      Sitting in his nowhere land
      Making all his nowhere plans for somebody

      Doesn’t have a point of view
      Knows not where he’s going to
      Not a little bit like you and me?

      Nowhere Man, please listen
      You don’t know what you’re missing
      Nowhere Man, your world is at their command

      He’s as blind as he can be
      Sees just what they want him to see
      Nowhere Man can you be seen at all? (In three weeks?)

      Nowhere Man, don’t worry
      Take your time, don’t hurry
      Leave it all till somebody else lends you a hand

  • Paul Barbara

    @ Craig
    ‘….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……’
    ‘Watergate’ was not what it seems – it was a set-up, to get rid of Nixon who was to be replaced by fellow paedo Ford:
    The whole caboodle was set up intentionally to be ‘leaked’.
    Kissinger stayed on; the following year Ford and Kissinger were in Jakarta, and the day after they left (I think for Hawaii) Suharto invaded East Timor, the start of an extremely brutal and genocidal 25-year occupation of the half an island (200,000-300,000 dead, a third or more of the pre-invasion population).
    On the other hand (as Chaim Bermant used to say), in the case of Isr**l’s murderous attack on the USS Liberty, one Isr**li pilot was heard to radio his base to say the ship (Liberty) was ‘an American ship’; his base controller said ”You’ve got your orders – hit it’.
    At least one pilot (possibly two) refused to attack; yet who has heard of this, even though it is in the public domain (‘Operation Cyanide’, Peter Hounam)?
    How many people covered up the Pearl Harbour plot? Or the ‘Gulf of Tonkin LIE’? 2,400-odd and 58,000-odd American dead (and many more Japanese, Vietnamese, Laotian and Cambodian dead); how many people (other than the ‘tin-foil-hatters’) know about this stuff?
    Personally, I was never interested in history, till I learnt (belatedly) about the truth of 9/11 (not ‘the whole truth’,but that it was clearly an ‘Inside Job’).

  • Paul Barbara

    I know Udo Ultkoffe has been covered on here, but another couple of whistleblowers are also covered in this article:
    ‘Top German Journalist Admits Mainstream Media Is Completely Fake: “We All Lie For The CIA”:

    These are just the tip of the iceberg – most ‘presstitutes’ are content to mislead their audience for money. There is an interesting bit about Wikipedia.

      • Paul Barbara

        @ Bobm August 21, 2017 at 22:00
        To be honest, I didn’t watch all of it, but I watched enough to know there was a lot of info that many people on this thread would be unaware of.

  • Paul Barbara

    David Ray Griffin’s new book; pricey at present in hardback. But the paperback will bring price down.
    ‘Bush and Cheney: How They Ruined America and the World’:
    David Ray Griffin
    “In this devastating critique of the enduring harm done by the Bush-Cheney presidency, David Ray Griffin provocatively links an informed account of American foreign policy failures to a definitive critique of the official version of the 9/11 attacks. All who regard themselves as responsible citizens should expose themselves to Griffin’s arguments set forth lucidly, persuasively, and imaginatively in this indispensable book.”–Richard Falk, Emeritus Professor of International Law, Princeton University
    “If you believe that the willful destruction of the American Constitution warrants a serious debate, the new finely-researched book by Griffin is required reading.”–F. William Engdahl, author of The Lost Hegemon: Whom the Gods Would Destroy
    “This book lays out our unspeakable history from Bush and Cheney through Obama into the Trump administration, and how we now teeter on the edge of nuclear and ecological holocaust. Is the most critical origin of our terminal plight the transparent lie of 9/11? It is exposed here brilliantly by Griffin, who tells the truth needed for human survival.”–James W. Douglass, author of JFK and the Unspeakable…..’

    • mog

      I am glad that Griffin wrote about climate change, as (i) there has been much conflation of 911 skepticism with climate change denial over the years; (ii) climate change has been a focus for me for much of my adult life, leading me to try and understand the rise of corporate power, the central importance of war in imperial capitalism and the need for false threats to maintain inequalities of wealth and power.

      I recently read the much cited ‘Capitalist Realism’ by the late Mark Fisher. He acknowledges that 911 stopped the momentum of the 1990s anti-globalisation movement in its tracks (although as with so many on the left he has no credible opinion on 911 itself). Climate change and global inequality became demoted as issues- the world errupted in hysteria, war and a clamp down on democratic rights and liberties. It is depressing that so few in the movements for social and economic justice, or in the environmental movement have grasped how important 911 was to thwarting their efforts. None questioned it. People like me who did, were sidelined and kind of excommunicated.
      I think one day, it will be widely recognised that 911 skeptics have been right these past years, and an understanding will grow about how important it is to our era.

      By the way, I missed that more JFK files have been released. An early article at WhoWhatWhy :

      PS Barret Brown writing there, which is great to see.

      • Dave

        Each issue needs to be investigated separately and not conflated with others. Griffin may be motivated to say man-made climate change is true for credence on the ‘Left’ about 9/11, but he shouldn’t conflate the two because man-made climate change is an elementary hoax, see But no doubt there are climate deniers who go along with the official 9/11 conspiracy theory.

        • mog

          I really do not think that Griffin is motivated in his writings about climate change by anything other than a conviction that the science is clear on the issue. He has written several books on the philosophy of science and is very knowledgeable about issues of scientific accuracy and fraudulence.
          I don’t think it is credible to suggest that he is part of a ‘climate change hoax’.

          • mog

            But wrong to conflate the two.

            I think it is wrong to conflate skepticism about one with skepticism about the other (or any other). I agree with you that each controversy needs to be dealt with on its own merits.
            I do though think it is legitimate to look at connections between fossil fuel interests and 911, which can bring attention onto climate change and the propaganda drive by those interests to confuse the public about the science around AGW. This is what Griffin has done.
            (His previous book on climate – ‘Unprecedented’ is very well reviewed -in a field that has many titles, it is held up as an exceptional argument).

          • Dave

            A range of interests promote the climate hoax for different reasons, including the religious minded due to its end of the world is nigh and we are all to blame message, requiring repentance of our sins before the end days. Ironically Griffins strong religious views propel him to expose 9/11 but fall for AGW.

  • John Goss

    Shamefully Theresa May has decided not to release the report on the alleged 9/11 Saudi hijackers. No surprise there because if they were part of this event and we are still arming Saudi Arabia to the teeth some questions need asking as well as those being asked by Caroline Lucas.

    I still suspect that if the Saudis were involved it would not be the Saudi government and the so-called hijackers would only have been superficially involved. They may have had no idea what was going on in this psy-op.

    The report photograph shows the inner-core ‘spire’ as it has come to be known in great clarity. That is the spire that a) crumbled to dust b) was brought down from the bottom up. Indeed the only way the towers could have been brought down is from the bottom up. The saddest part of the tragedy is that relatives still do not know who was responsible for 9/11 or who funded them. For Theresa may to say “There is certain confidential information in the report that means that it would not be appropriate to publish it, but my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has made it available, on a Privy Council basis, to Opposition parties” is simply not good enough. It is just further obfuscation.

    • Paul Barbara

      @ John Goss August 21, 2017 at 14:55
      ‘…Indeed the only way the towers could have been brought down is from the bottom up….’
      That’s exactly what William Rodriguez said happened in WTC 1 – an initial explosion in the sub basement levels (at 8:20 in):
      ‘911 The Last Man Out – William Rodriguez’:

      There’s a great 7 – part series at the moment on Vaccines – this is day/part 4:
      ‘The Truth About Vaccines Docu-Series – Episode 4 || HIB and Pneumococcal Vaccines and Herd Immunity’:
      It’s 1 1/2 hours, but should not be missed.

    • Paul Barbara

      @ John Goss August 21, 2017 at 14:55
      Yes, that is an excellent picture of the ‘spire’; I don’t believe I have ever seen it before.

        • Paul Barbara

          @ John Goss August 21, 2017 at 21:35
          I had that idea years ago, and broached it to some folks in the States – but I envisaged it being done by a State, not an individual. At that time Hugo Chavez was going strong, and the oil price was fine.
          Also a couple of people from the 9/11 movement had met him, and I knew he and particularly Maduro (who was in his government) believed 9/11 was an ‘Inside Job’. Anyhow, I wasn’t able to get traction for the idea.
          My idea was to build a ‘skeleton building’ of similar steel structure to the outer columns, on top of a hill (or a building due for demolition’, then buying a ‘ready for the plane graveyard’ (but still serviceable) Boeing, fitting it with remote control, installing a ‘homing beacon’ in the ‘building skeleton’ and presto!, let rip!
          But someone recently had the idea of mounting a part of a Boeing wing (the strongest part, from near the fuselage) on a rocket sled and ramming it into a structure of similar strength and thickness as the outer supporting beams:

          Unfortunately the guy quit the project. But he was going about things in a ‘cart before the horse’ fashion; he was going to get all sorts of work done, THEN see if he could get a rocket sled facility to agree to do it.
          That is obviously one of the first things one should do (as well as finding out if it was possible to purchase such a wing portion from a ‘plane graveyard’. I would think the plane wing purchase would be a no-no, and the rocket sled facility another likely no-no.
          But it could be done with a State actor like Iran! Or even Cuba!
          If a partial Boeing wing was unavailable, a comparable wing of another similar sized aircraft would do nearly as well.

          • John Goss

            To do the experiment properly would be outside of the pocket of an individual like you or me. And to my mind it is a pointless exercise. Aluminium plane wings do not cut through steel. They break apart and debris falls down.

          • Paul Barbara

            @ John Goss August 22, 2017 at 17:57
            Perforce! Granted! It needs a state actor!
            That’s why I communicate with others, to the tune of trying to make it happen.
            It can be done, and should be done,
            God willing (Inshallah) it will get done.

  • mog

    Without wanting to get into a debate about it, I am just curious as to how many people who visit this thread think like Dave, that climate change is ‘an elementary hoax’?

    Would anyone be willing to just offer a reply to the effect of ‘hoax’, or ‘real’ ?

    • Paul Barbara

      @ mog August 22, 2017 at 08:35
      Like you, I don’t want to get into a debate about it, but it seems a slam dunk that humans have radically changed the climate.
      The huge amounts of carbon burnt as fuel, vast forest areas deforested, exotic man-made chemicals (like CFC’s), disruption of the higher atmosphere and ozone layer with nuclear tests and military and passenger aircraft, and of course, for the last 25+ years, stratospheric aerosol injection (‘chemtrails’) (see Geoengineering Watch:
      Many people have been aware of the massive spraying of toxic materials that has been going on – now it is official that they ‘plan’ to do it’ – ‘Research programme will send aerosol injections into the earth’s upper atmosphere to study the risks and benefits of a future solar tech-fix for climate change’:
      What they won’t admit to is the use of ‘Chemtrails’ (this word is frowned upon by the experts, but I continue to use it) in conjunction with HAARP has been used, and will increasingly be used, for weather warfare, and indeed to create earthquakes, which in turn can create Tsunamis. It also gives the military communications and radar possibilities they wouldn’t have without the ‘trails’ and HAARP.
      How many commenters believe Chemtrails and HAARP are real and already being used?

      • Paul Barbara

        I meant to add that the one point I agree with Judy Wood (and I really don’t like mentioning her, with her ‘dustification’, ‘energy weapons’ and the ‘Hutchison Effect’ baloney) is that Hurricane Erin could well have been steered away from the East Coast on 9/11 by HAARP – which had just been opened up to full power, in order not to disrupt the carefully-laid plans (I also have an open mind on mini-nukes, in conjunction with nanothermite/ate and perhaps other conventional explosives).

    • Maxter

      If its man made, then why the continual use of probably the biggest government waste of fossil fuel energy on the face of the earth, the war machine. its almost like hastening our demise intentionally. Just kind of proves the mental state of those in power to be devoid of any sanity!

      • Paul Barbara

        @ Maxter August 22, 2017 at 10:06
        You answered your own question – ‘…Just kind of proves the mental state of those in power to be devoid of any sanity!’
        But not just sanity, also devoid of any empathy or morality – in a word, Luciferian.
        Albert Pike admitted in ‘Morals and Dogma’ that from the 30* upwards (‘Shriners’), Scottish Rite Masons should be told that Lucifer was their God (and ‘Skull & Bones’, ‘Concatenated Order of Hoo-Hoo’ (seriously!) and others are all based around the same concept, but few would admit to it.
        Whether or not you believe in God and the Devil, or indeed whether they exist or not, these ‘Jokers’ act as if they do, and behave accordingly.

        • John Spencer-Davis

          How do you think a Christian or Deist Freemason or indeed a Freemason of any theological belief would react to being told that Lucifer was God?

          • Paul Barbara

            @ John Spencer-Davis August 22, 2017 at 11:29
            Rather badly; but if you read my comment, or read ‘Morals and Dogma’, or research the issue on the net (or elsewhere) you will find that Albert Pike said it was only to be revealed to 30* – 33* Masons.
            Although, I would add, it should have become apparent to many before the 30*, especially to spin-off sections of Masonry, such as the ‘Holy Royal Arch’ (only 1 in 3 or 4 Masons in the UK are ‘Companions of the Royal Arch’), whose ritual reveals that the Supreme Being’s true name is ‘Jahbulon’ (JAH -BUL-ON, standing for Jehovah, Baal and Osiris.
            Masons aware of Pike’s words (and he is still revered, and his book is still reprinted by Masonic printers) TRY to wriggle out of it, but not very plausibly.
            Apart from that, ‘By their works thou shalt know them’ – they ‘work’ towards controlling any institution they get into, be it the Judiciary, police, military, business, whatever – at the expense of other equally or more qualified non-Masons; their ‘benevolence’ self-directed or for show. And they must protect, lie for and cover for their ‘Brethren’, no matter what crime they have committed (they may argue this point, but that is how it pans out).
            I suggest you read Steven Knight’s ‘The Brotherhood’ and ‘Jack The Ripper – The Final Solution’, and Martin Short’s ‘Inside The Brotherhood’.
            Are you a Mason, if you don’t mind me asking?

          • John Spencer-Davis

            And I have read two of those three at least. Not impressed, nor by the rest of what you have said.

          • John Spencer-Davis

            “Apart from that, ‘By their works thou shalt know them’ – they ‘work’ towards controlling any institution they get into, be it the Judiciary, police, military, business, whatever – at the expense of other equally or more qualified non-Masons; their ‘benevolence’ self-directed or for show. And they must protect, lie for and cover for their ‘Brethren’, no matter what crime they have committed (they may argue this point, but that is how it pans out).”

            Ridiculous. Nothing of that is remotely true of myself, and I have no reason to suppose that I am unusual among my brethren in that way.

          • John Spencer-Davis

            The Anglican vicar who married my wife and I is a prominent member of the Holy Royal Arch. I knew him pretty well at one time: are you seriously asserting that he was a worshipper of Lucifer? I would be interested to know.

          • Paul Barbara

            @ John Spencer-Davis August 22, 2017 at 15:55
            ‘…Not impressed, nor by the rest of what you have said.’
            Fine, you may not be impressed with the books – but as you have read two of them, can you specifically state what you disagree with?
            You see, I have never been (nor would I wish to be) a Mason; I get my information from books, including Masonic books, and I have read a considerable amount on the subject. My memory on specifics is not good, so I would have to refer back to the books, some of which I have (Stevens, Short, Albert Pike, JSM Ward, and many I read some years back which I obtained from the library. I am fully aware Masons don’t like their ‘secrets’ exposed, and used to thieve books on Masonry from public libraries; I am also fully aware, as are you, that you learn further ‘secrets’ as you ascend the Maonic ladder (thanks for answering my question re your status – would you also give me you rank, and any other side rites you might subscribe to (I assume you are a Master Mason)?
            Re the Anglican vicar, I suggest you contact him if he is still alive, and ask him about ‘Jahbulon’. I would be very interested in his reaction.

          • Paul Barbara

            @ John Spencer-Davis August 22, 2017 at 15:57
            ‘..Ridiculous. Nothing of that is remotely true of myself, and I have no reason to suppose that I am unusual among my brethren in that way.’
            I am very pleased to hear it is not true of yourself. But as for having no reason to suppose you are unusual in that way, I suggest you reread those books, and make sure Martin Short is among them, as his is the best of the three: ‘Inside The Brotherhood’. He has also written others.
            I know very well that the majority of Masons would be horrified if they knew that the top echelons (30* -33* – the ones the Masonic Presidents, Generals, Captains of Industry etc generally attain) believe Lucifer is their God.
            And we have what Dr. Rowan Williams (then Archbishop of Canterbury) believed (and presumably still does) about the Masons:
            ‘The ‘Satanic’ Brotherhood with clergymen in its ranks’:

          • John Spencer-Davis

            Well, let’s say that it’s the case that the fact that Lucifer is the god of the Freemasons is only revealed to those of the 30th to the 33rd degree (no such thing in England, but they’re a funny lot in Scotland, I understand). Okay. Then consider a Christian Freemason of the 29th degree. On promotion to the 30th, what is he to make of the secret that Freemasons actually worship Lucifer? Do you not think that that would create a certain cognitive dissonance? Thanks. J

          • John Spencer-Davis

            I read Short and Knight a long time ago. It’s about time I re-read them, so I will do so before most specifics. However, a couple of things spring to mind. One is the account of the murder trial of, I believe, Frederick Seddon, who allegedly swore by the Great Architect of the Universe that he was innocent to the judge. The judge was allegedly shocked beyond measure, but sentenced him to death in any case. Where was the favouritism? Secondly, Knight’s account of the secret fourth and higher degrees of English Freemasonry, which I believe is completely false, but I will have to go back and look at sources.

            I would be interested in your sources for the Pike quote about Lucifer and the stuff about Jahbulon.

            Most Freemasons couldn’t care less about their secrets being exposed. Freemasonry is very open now. Even the parts of the ritual that Freemasons keep secret are up on the Internet. I’ve seen them. There’s not much mystery about it.

            Yes, I am a Master Mason. English Freemasonry is a very flat organisation, having only three degrees of Freemasonry, and an equality between all Master Masons. I don’t know about Scotland. I am not involved in any aspect of Freemasonry other than the Craft: I was invited to join a Royal Arch Chapter but declined. I simply don’t have the time.

            Afraid I’m no longer in touch with Peter Hemingway. he retired years ago. J

          • Clark

            Oh what a load of silly fuss is made about Freemasonry.

            Yes of course Freemasons conspire, as will people of any fraternity, or just otherwise random people who come to share privacy and interests. That people are conspiratorial is a fact of human nature. Singling out Freemasonry is like shooting fish in a barrel.

          • Clark

            Conspiracy theorists’ obsession with groups like Freemasons is essentially similar to police targeting blacks for “stop and search”; prejudice and lazy thinking.

          • Clark

            And it’s the same old thing as spy agencies “targeting” the entire Muslim community for “investigation of terrorism”.

            What matters is what people do, not who they are or who they know.

          • John Goss

            “How do you think a Christian or Deist Freemason or indeed a Freemason of any theological belief would react to being told that Lucifer was God?”

            With great disbelief I should imagine. I have known many freemasons, and still know some, and the majority have been moral, sober and upstanding people, who would be helpful to others whether or not they were brothers. I play golf with some (by their handshake). Ordinary Freemasons may have no idea, I may have no idea, what goes on higher up the order. That in my opinion is where the problem lies. Going into anything blindfolded is not what I think questioning people do.

            I also think, with diminishing membership, and the very openness that you are aware of, John, that Freemasonry is in decline. The Church is in decline. Much of Freemasonry appears to have been based on the mystical side of Judaism, and occultism, whereby a large number of people can be manipulated by creeds and dogma.

            As a Christian I am always questioning my church. There was a recessional Zionist hymn last Sunday which does not belong. And I criticise.


            But being a Christian I have no doubt lays me just as open to ridicule in the 21st century as being a Freemason. Back in 1998 I was told there is a war going on between masons and anti-masons. While that may be true I think that the more divisive secret organisations, that oversee the lesser ones like Freemasons, are almost beyond the scrutiny of ordinary people though many are questioning.

            While those that own the media, own the media, there can be little truth in the public domain. I despair.

          • Paul Barbara

            @ Clark August 22, 2017 at 23:09
            Thanks, Clark; par for the course. By the way , are you a Mason, by any chance, and do you have any knowledge of it?
            Why are you replying for a Mason who can obviously defend his position?

          • Paul Barbara

            @ John Spencer-Davis August 22, 2017 at 22:13
            Oddly enough, I note you did not respond to my link re the ex-Archbishop of Canterbury.
            Would you like to, or would you rather not?

          • John Spencer-Davis

            John Goss.

            Many thanks for that. It seems that when people attack Freemasons, they don’t really mean Freemasons. They mean an alleged secret inner circle of senior Freemasons whose beliefs and actions are the complete opposite to those of the Freemasons outside the circle. Well, you could say that about any organisation. You could say that the Women’s Royal Voluntary Institute is comprised of tens of thousands of decent women who are fooled into supporting a secret inner circle of evil witches.

            If there is this secret inner circle, why do they bother with the outside organisation at all? For camouflage? Doesn’t seem to have worked very well, does it? Thanks. J

          • John Spencer-Davis

            Thank you, Clark. I am sure you are right, and that there have been wicked and corrupt Freemasons just as there have been wicked and corrupt people in any organisation. It’s in the nature of organisations only to be as good as the people in them. However, wicked and corrupt Freemasons, if such exist, do so in spite of the ideals of Freemasonry, not because of them. Cheers. J

          • Clark

            Since having said that, someone I respect has been telling me that the Masons are up to their necks in child abuse, but there’s little evidence because they’re a secret organisation. I’m not sure what can be done based on that. As in all such matters, disclosure is necessary.

          • John Spencer-Davis

            Well, Clark, I am sad to say that it wouldn’t surprise me. It seems that any institution these days has the same problems, from care homes to the Catholic Church. However, a few priestly child molesters presumably don’t stop people from being Catholics. I don’t believe most Freemasons are like that. J

          • Clark

            John, I suppose the point is that some organisations have what might be called a separatist attitude, and members of such organisations usually cover up for each other. For instance, child abuse within the Jehovah’s Witnesses was exposed some years ago, but I’m unaware of any theories that Jehovah’s Witnessism is actually a world domination project. But it is well known that many police and judiciary are Freemasons, making any cover-up far more sinister and significant.

            If technology continues its recent development it seems likely that secrecy and privacy will cease to exist almost entirely, with camera drones indistinguishable from common insects.

          • John Spencer-Davis

            But to me, any suggestion that Freemasons are bent on world domination because they are Freemasons is nonsensical. Freemasons as Freemasons couldn’t care less about politics. Freemasons as Freemasons don’t talk about politics because they are enjoined not to. It is forbidden to Freemasons to discuss religion or politics within the Lodge or the Craft. I have no idea what the politics of other Freemasons are other than my personal friends, and I don’t care. I am probably pretty unusual among Freemasons in the leftness of my politics, because it is quite a long way to the left of the population. Think they care? They don’t even know. Yes, there may be a secret cabal of inner Freemasons bent on world domination, just as there may be a secret cabal of inner Jehovah’s Witnesses who are. How do you prove it? J

    • Dave

      The vast majority of CO2 is in the oceans that cover over 75% of planet. Only about 0.038% is in the atmosphere and there are natural variations, that easily eclipse anything humans do. When the almighty Sun burns hotter the CO2 is released from the oceans via evaporation and when its colder its sinks back into the oceans and into general vegetation growth. I.e. Increases in CO2 follows, rather than causes an increase in temperature.

      That said, life on earth prefers a warmer climate and CO2 is the food plants breathe to make them grow and humans cannot breathe without it, because although we need oxygen, CO2 is the irritant that make our lungs work. I.e. Its not a pollutant but essential to life on earth. Elementary!

      • James Dickenson

        So these ‘12,000 peer-reviewed climate science papers’don’t understand the point you are trying to make?

        “Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
        Posted on 16 May 2013 by dana1981, John Cook
        A new survey of over 12,000 peer-reviewed climate science papers by our citizen science team at Skeptical Science has found a 97% consensus among papers taking a position on the cause of global warming in the peer-reviewed literature that humans are responsible.”

        • Dave

          The points I made are elementary, so if you disagree with them say so and why, but don’t say almost “all the scientists agree” in AGW, because they don’t because almost all scientists are not climatologists and climatologists don’t agree with AGW. See And also because if something is elementary you do not need to consult an expert to know the truth.

  • Clark

    What’s really needed here is a debate about psychology and human nature.

    The question of climate change has parallels with Twin Tower demolition theory and “chemtrails”. If climate change is a hoax, or if the collapses of the Twin Towers really defied physical law unless explosives were used, or if commercial aircraft really are producing “chemtrails”, it becomes necessary to account for vast academic, professional and hobbyist communities who are either keeping quiet or helping to maintain the respective cover-ups.

    Why indeed is there so much military expenditure and war? Yes, it obviously does make a major contribution to climate change. Ironically, they (or rather we) fight to gain control of the fossil fuel reserves that cause the problem.

    I’m deliberately stressing us, as opposed to “them”. I’ve just helped to put on a festival. The fuel requirements were immense. Generators, vehicles, diesel – and we’ve turned a lovely pasture into something resembling a WWI battlefield of mud.

    We’re ALL part of the problem; some more so than others, but it’s a matter of degree, not a “sheep and goats” matter. We all like to think that “they” are entirely responsible for all of the world’s problems, but it’s lazy thinking, a way of denying our own part of the responsibility, a way of absolving ourselves.

    • mog


      I helped set up a stall at Glastonbury one year. I didn’t stay for the festival itself, but returned to help take it down, and the contrast in Eavis’ farm was a mental shock. So I can relate to your experience up in Scotland.
      I see fundamental differences between the climate change dispute and that surrounding the Twin Towers. Superficially, one could point out that in both cases there is a small band of ‘mavericks’ who challenge an official position. However, AGW is a hypothesis supported by a huge body of scientific literature, all peer reviewed, produced by tens of thousands of scientists all around the globe, over decades of sustained research. The fire and impact damage hypothesis for the WTC disaster is basically a US government (NIST) account that is not peer reviewed, unquestionable without drawing ire, and that you yourself suggest is a cover up. There is no body of scientists willing to step forward and defend NIST’s account (that I know of).
      I think it is quite feasible to account for members of scientific and professional communities who are ‘keeping quiet’ about the WTC dispute. I cannot say the same for AGW, because such professionals generally understand the priciples of scientific inquiry where data is made public, hypotheses are open to scrutiny and experiments are replicatable.

      • Clark

        Mog, don’ be so daftly pedantic. For the Twin Towers, there is simply no serious academic contention over the damage-fire-collapse explanation since it is self-evident; what little disagreement there was has long since been resolved. If anyone seriously wants to advance another explanation, they need to find extraordinary evidence for it, as the existing evidence is all consistent with damage-fire-collapse. It isn’t necessary to accept any of the detail of the various investigations to accept damage-fire-collapse. If it wasn’t damage-fire-collapse, it was an (impossibly?) well contrived imitation of it – with no rehearsal! There is simply no question that damage-fire-collapse is consistent with physics, and theories that insist upon the necessity of explosives are quite rightly ridiculed for their paucity of evidence and reasoning, not “ire” to defend an official position.

        Not so Building 7’s collapse, and accordingly there is academic contention about that. But there also isn’t much sense of critical importance, which is understandable seeing as WTC7 had been evacuated.

        That’s the situation as it seems to me. Go look for yourself; I did.

        • mog

          As said before I am not interested in arguing the details of WTC, as that has been done to death here.
          However, I was replying to your general point about ‘psychology and human nature’, where you re-enforced the conflation between climate change skepticism and skepticism about the fire and damge hypothesis re the twin towers. (And this, strangely, in response to a link to Griffin’s work, who has both written extensively about the WTC and climate change).
          This is an issue concerning people’s collective understanding of the scientific process and about people’s trust in official bodies of government-endorsed scientific opinion. It is also a question, for some, about vested interests, as many who suspect that 911 was the work ulitimately of (amongst others) oil interests, this counters the direction of accused bias in the arguments of climate change ‘deniers’.
          I think it is a poor argument to say that, on the one hand, you believe that the NIST reports were a cover up for a failed design of building (i.e. a conspiracy ‘to protect the construction industry’), yet you state with absolute certainty that the science supports the fire and damage hypothesis that is detailed in those reports. I thought that the essence of the scientific method was that people put forward theories, a whole load of people try to knock them down through experiment and argument, if one stands the rigors of that test then people endorse it. In this case however, it seems to have be regarded ‘legitimate’ to let just one theory be put forward, anyone who challenges it with experiment or argument or suggests another theory is written off as a crank, all scientific standards and procedures are thrown out the window and the final hypothesis is defended even by those who admit that there has been a cover up of evidence.
          Either we have a reliable, scientific account of what happened, or we don’t. I am interested in what the offical narrative says and whether it stands up to criticism, much less so in the opinions of individuals commenting at a distance.
          I think my point stands, that I suspect that the absence of scientists and building professionals coming forward to defend the NIST account (in the face of much criticism of NIST) is explainable by the fact that the NIST story falls apart when examined. NIST’s experimental data does not support their conclusions, it relies on suppositions that are untested, its report has not been reviewed or tested, much evidence has been left unnaccounted for, and its models are secret and therefore unreplicatable.
          I don’t think that is pedantry and I have looked for myself. There is ‘serious academic contention’.

          • Clark

            You’re never going to get a “scientific” account of the collapses of the Twin Towers, nor any other building collapses for that matter. It’s an engineering issue, not physics. Physics just says that such collapses are possible; even I can work that out. The messy and supremely complex details of the collapse sequences can be probed by comparison of data to engineering simulation, but that’s as good as it’s ever likely to get.

            Look, really; academics are not being bullied into acceptance of damage-fire-collapse, no matter what Truther sites claim. Bazant gets a bit prickly, but so what? He’s an old professor; they get like that. EPN DID publish that article, and published the response from Bazant etc.

            There are various academics with objections about NIST’s WTC7 theory, and their objections are publicly available.

          • mog

            You’re never going to get a “scientific” account of the collapses of the Twin Towers, nor any other building collapses for that matter. It’s an engineering issue, not physics.
            Really do not understand what you are trying to say here Clark. ‘Engineering issues’ are presented in the terms of scientific problems -e.g. about how materials behave under stress, when heated, corroded etc. Engineering as a discipline is built upon scientific knowledge and formulas. The NIST reports are presented as ‘scientific reports’ by the authors. NIST purportedly created experiments to test their hypothesis in a scientific manner.
            So your comment makes no sense to me I’m afraid.
            I cited an article (one of many) that refers to the alleged corruption of scientific procedure in the research and reporting of NIST. Anyone who had followed the story as it unfolded at the time would have noted that NIST were extremely reluctant to respond to any inquiry, challenge or request for clarification – they just blocked everyone out. If evidence is destroyed and witheld, is that ‘science’ ? Is it ‘engineering’?
            I raised this issue because I think, from what I have read, that irrespective of what you, me or anyone thinks about ‘the physics of the collapses’ , it is unarguable that NIST’s work on the towers (and even more so on WTC7) does not meet the stadards of a ‘scientific report’.
            You have no comment on the alleged abuses of science by NIST, and their unwillingness to publicly answer criticisms, it seems. Either you believe in the scientific process or you do not.

        • Clark

          Mog, I apologise for not following your link; my time is very limited here, trying to clear the festival site. Many local people are unhappy about the lingering mess, we’re short of labour, and it keeps pissing with rain; it really is very hard. I have looked at such links before, and I’m aware of many shortcomings of the NIST reports. But my acceptance of damage-fire-collapse, specifically for the Twin Towers, is not based on NIST. It is my own assessment based primarily upon the extensive video records and the historical information about the buildings’ design and construction. What I commend about the final NIST report for the Twin Towers is that they did manage to state the many safety shortcomings of the buildings, despite intense political pressure.

          Confusion between physics and engineering is at the heart of many of the misunderstandings of Twin Tower demolition theorists. Physics is the fundamental science of matter and energy; “Newtonian physics” isn’t really part of physics these days; physicists understand it to be a set of convenient approximations rather than fundamental physical law. However, It is still the primary tool of most engineering.

          The world is very complex, and engineering is about applying physics in real-world situations, ie. everything beyond laboratory conditions. It is about determining the degree of relevance of the infinitude of physics calculations that can be used to analyse any physical scenario. For instance, to analyse an explosion we could attempt to calculate the paths of all the atoms and molecules involved, but we’d just end up with more calculations than could ever be completed. Instead, we assume that the various paths will average out such that we only need to consider “pressure”. Of course, this “pressure” is not a fundamental quantity; it’s just a convenient quantity that, statistically, is extremely likely to give relevant results when applied in real-world situations.
          – – – – –
          Yes, NIST covered up and played down many things. However, that they covered up controlled demolition of the Twin Towers is a massive and incredibly narrow assumption – yet it has become a primary assumption of the Truther community, conformance with which has become the test by which Truthers judge other commentators. This continues to lead the whole Truther community on a wild goose chase.

          Sorry, the Sun is shining; now’s my chance to get some work done.

    • Paul Barbara

      @ Clark August 22, 2017 at 12:57
      ‘…If climate change is a hoax, or if the collapses of the Twin Towers really defied physical law unless explosives were used, or if commercial aircraft really are producing “chemtrails”, it becomes necessary to account for vast academic, professional and hobbyist communities who are either keeping quiet or helping to maintain the respective cover-ups….’
      One of the ways to account for it is peer pressure, self-interest (money, jobs) and believing the PTB ‘know best’.
      Please watch the following – I believe you have strong feelings about vaccines, but check this out (i 1/2 hours – but well worth it); it will definitely open your eyes. One of the doctors explains a doctor can make $1 million dollars (on top of his basic income) by making sure a certain percentage of his patients get the full spectrum of injections specified. That is a heck of a big incentive to not ask questions, not rock the boat. There are lots of other good examples, where doctors value money rather than their patient’s welfare.
      One guy explained how he and his wife took their young child to the doctor, who they had known for a long time and thought of as a friend.
      The lady doctor whipped out an injection kit and opened it, without saying a word. When the parents asked her what she was doing, she said she was going to inject the child. They said, ‘hang on, we need to think about this’ the doctor blew her top, and ordered them out of the surgery, saying ‘I’ve got to pay for this now’ (the opened injection kit)!!! There is a heck of a lot of good hard facts in that video (it is part of a series of 7).

    • Paul Barbara

      @ Clark August 22, 2017 at 12:57
      ‘…and we’ve turned a lovely pasture into something resembling a WWI battlefield of mud….’
      But when turned over, next year it’s likely to be good as new (as long as ya’ll didn’t leak too much diesel!)
      But our atmosphere, rivers, oceans (plastics, radiation, heavy metals, chemical pollution), lands, crops and trees, as well as people and animals, cannot be made whole again. The best we can do is stop the rot, which just ain’t going to happen, unfortunately.
      But Trump may save us from a worsening future, by bringing on Armageddon.
      Time to brush up on your praying and hymn singing!

    • John Spencer-Davis

      Yes, it is interesting, but – shrug. Dr Williams is entitled to his views, but I believe he is an Evangelical, and such people tend to get a bit het up over very little. Let’s take a look at the most interesting passages to me.

      “His views will be greeted with astonishment by the significant number of senior clergymen and Christians who are members of the 350,000-strong Craft” – which alone demonstrates that the view that Freemasonry and Christianity are incompatible is debatable, to say the least. Unless, of course, all these people are secret Satanists. Which is probably what Rowan Williams thinks.

      “There are elements within certain churches who misunderstand Freemasonry and confuse secular rituals with religious liturgy.” Precisely. However, since the rituals are infused with material which is ultimately Biblical in inspiration and derivation, that is perhaps not surprising.

      “But some observers believe that at the heart of the Craft – and known only to those who reach the highest levels – there is a sinister quasi-religion based on a composite Masonic God, known as Jah-Bul-On.” Freemasons deny this, and I would like to see the evidence for it, if any. I doubt that Stephen Knight is telling the truth about it.

      “He also raised the issue of “back scratching” and the possible debt clergymen may feel towards fellow members of the Craft.” As I have said on here many times, these issues are dealt with upon initiation. Freemasons affirm that they seek no such advantage from joining, and that is an affirmation I take seriously.

      “John Habgood, the former Archbishop of York, told the General Synod that he believed Freemasonry was a “fairly harmless eccentricity” and later expressed the view that he did not see any conflict in being a Mason and a Christian.” There you go. Not every Archbishop takes Dr Williams’s view.

      “A working party concluded that Freemasons who belonged to the church did not think there was a problem, while non-Masons thought there were difficulties.” See that? That is because people who know the organisation from the inside know that this is a load of pernicious nonsense.

      Hope this assists. I really have no problem in answering your queries. J

      • Paul Barbara

        @ John Spencer-Davis August 23, 2017 at 07:39
        What about my request for you to ask the vicar who officiated at your wedding about Jahbulon?
        To pretend this is made up by non-Masons is, quite frankly, ridiculous. It is covered in Masonic books, not just anti-Masonic ones.
        What are your thoughts about 9/11? Do you think it was an ‘Inside Job’? Or perhaps 19 gormless Arabs, hyped up from vodka and cocaine, lap dancers and pornography, and only one of which was known to be a competent pilot (having served in an air force (and he was not the one who is alleged to have carried out the impossible feat claimed for the Pentagon attack, who couldn’t competently fly a Cessna), seamlessly and without a hiccup (apart from one poor sod, who lost his passport as he poked his head out of the porthole to double-check they were over New York, and not Tokyo), carried out the dastardly plot, under the control of a dying old geezer on dialysis in a cave in Afghanistan, armed with his trust Kalashnikov and a laptop?
        ‘Course, maybe TGAOTU had their backs….

        • John Spencer-Davis

          I did answer that: 22:13 yesterday at the end.

          Please could you give me Masonic sources for Jahbulon? I will also write to the United Grand Lodge of England asking about it. I don’t think it’s enough just to say “ridiculous” without giving sources. By the way, I am not necessarily saying that the word Jahbulon doesn’t occur in Masonic sources. It sounds just the sort of thing that would. However, without clear evidence I would certainly dispute that any Freemason worships some deity called Jahbulon.

          I don’t tend to think about 9/11 very much, and I haven’t looked at the evidence in detail. I do not feel qualified to argue the in and outs of building collapse. Therefore I tend to accept that aeroplanes hit buildings and caused the disaster. If there was some element of collusion with the US government or elements within it, I don’t really understand why it wouldn’t have been good enough for the government to recruit martyrs to fly the planes much as actually occurred, and leave it at that. Nor do I believe that a secret controlled demolition would have remained secret for very long. That’s more or less what I think. But I keep an open mind.

          You have omitted to give any sources for Pike. Thanks, John

          • KingofWelshNoir

            John Spencer-Davis : ‘Therefore I tend to accept that aeroplanes hit buildings and caused the disaster.’

            Well, John, it is certainly the case that planes hit (or are said to have) two buildings which collapsed. But what about the building that wasn’t hit by planes and collapsed?

            Building 7 was a 47 storey building that collapsed into its own footprint at freefall speed, displaying numerous characteristics of a controlled demolition. The BBC and numerous news agencies reported its collapse half an hour before it happened.

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


            To me that CNN footage means exactly what it says on the tin, Building 7 was blown up. And on any other day of the year I don’t think a single soul would disagree. What do you think it shows?

            (I’ve tried numerous times to get Kempe when he visits this thread to answer but he hasn’t so far. )

            I would be genuinely interested to hear your view.


          • John Spencer-Davis

            KOWN I will look at this video when I can and give you an honest answer. J

        • John Goss

          Paul, Jahbulon consists of three syllables which is recited by the three office-bearers: Zerubbabel, Haggai and Joshua.

          Albert Pike, Grand Commander of the Southern Jurisdiction of the Supreme Council of Charleston, in the States wrote when the word was introduced in 1873: “No man or body of men can make accept as a sacred word, as a symbol of the infinite and eternal Godhead, a mongrel word, in part composed of an accursed and beastly heathen god, whose name has been for more than two thousand years an appellation of the Devil.” US lodges at the time had no Royal Arch chapters.

          The word itself consists of three deities represented by the three syllables, Jah representing the Hebrew god Jahweh, Bul representing the Assyrian god Baal. and On representing the Egyptian Osiris (in other words two of them are pagan gods to Christians and Old Testament prophets). Masonic lectures label Jah a Chaldee name of God meaning “His Essence and Majesty Incomprehensible” as well as the Jewish meaning “I am and shall be” while it labels Bul a Syriac word meaning “Lord or Powerful” and On an Egyptian word meaning “Father of all”.

          The lecture goes on to quote Alexander Pope.

          FATHER of all! in every age,
          In every clime adored,
          By saint, by savage, and by sage,
          Jehovah, Jove, or Lord!

          Thus it adds Jupiter to the list, by Jove!

          If Christians do not want their faith shaken they would be advised not to join the Freemasons. Things done in secret will be shouted from the rooftops. All plots, be it the gunpowder plot, the plot to have Jesus arrested and crucified, or the plot to destroy the WTC are done covertly. If there is nothing to hide there is no need for secrecy.

          • John Goss

            The source for the above is Darkness Visible by Walton Hannah, 13th edition, Briton, 1965. Hannah was a Church of England clergyman who converted to Roman Catholicism.

          • John Spencer-Davis

            If the word was introduced in 1873 it can hardly have been that important to Freemasons. In any case, Hannah may be right, or he may not, but it looks as if he is describing some kind of ritual of one of the appended bodies to Freemasonry. What he does not seem to be doing is describing an act of worship. Not very surprising, since worship does not form part of Freemasonry.

            You don’t give a Pike source for the Pike quote. Do you know where it comes from? Thanks. J

          • KingofWelshNoir


            Gunpowder Plot? Don’t you know 5/11 was a false flag invented by the King and his prime minister in order to provide grounds for the introduction of anti Catholic legislation? Guy Fawkes was the Lee Harvey Oswald of his time. It was common knowledge at the time.

            This quote, taken from a 19th century history that attempted to overturn the received wisdom could apply just as well to 9/11.

            ‘Much of what the conspirators are said to have done is well-nigh incredible, while it is utterly impossible that if they really acted in the manner described, the public authorities should not have had full knowledge of their proceedings.’

            What was the Gunpowder Plot?—John Gerard, London 1897

          • John Goss

            According to Walton Hannah the source of the quote is “The Holy Triad!, Washington, 1873. The word (concatenation) Jah-Bul-On may have predated this publication. Anyway, John, if you never went beyond third degree Tubal Cain would have been the last pass you used.

            I have always been disturbed by the exclusive nature of Freemasonry. I quote here from a Scottish Complete Manual of Freemasonry. “The totally blind and deaf and dumb are inadmissable. Lodges are allowed to exercise their own discretion as to the initiation of candidates who are mutilated in, or minus a limb.”

          • John Goss

            KingofWelshNoir August 23, 2017 at 14:46

            Thank you for bringing us back on topic. Yes it would not surprise me how the gunpowder plot was plotted or by whom, as with 9/11. The point I was making was that whoever plotted it plotted it in secret. I point no fingers, neither at Guido himself, nor James I, but what I will say is that confessions obtained under torture should not be admissable anywhere.

          • Paul Barbara

            @ John Goss August 23, 2017 at 12:11
            I know that Jahbulon stands for Yahwey, Baal and Osiris, and have already explained that above.
            And I have also read ‘Darkness Visible’, one of the many I borrowed from the library many moons ago.
            It is interesting to note some links between Masonry and Witchcraft: both are known as ‘Crafts’, and both have the same ‘prayer ending’, or whatever they call it: ‘So mote it be’, as opposed to the Christian’s ‘Thy will be done’, or the Muslim’s ‘Inshallah’. In other words, ‘My will be done’, rather than ‘God’s will be done’.

          • John Spencer-Davis

            I have yet to see evidence that Freemasons worship a deity they call Jahbulon. However, I am pleased to look into it.

            Where does Lucifer fit into this? Are Lucifer and Jahbulon supposed to be the same being, or what? Which is it that Freemasons worship, Lucifer or Jahbulon?

            Incidentally, I understand that Albert Pike remained a committed Freemason until his death. If he thought that his brethren worshipped the Devil or a pagan deity, and he disliked the idea as much as he is quoted as doing, wouldn’t he have left the organisation? Thanks. John

          • Paul Barbara

            @ John Goss August 23, 2017 at 12:11
            The book I have, Albert Pike’s ‘Morals and Dogma’, was entered into the Library of Congress in 1871; in it Pike writes the following (I’m not going through nnearly 900 pages to find what page it is on in ‘Morals and Dogma’, but there are many quotes of it on the web, including the following one:
            ‘…That which we must say to a crowd is—We worship a God, but it is the God that one adores without superstition. To you, Sovereign Grand Inspectors General, we say this, that you may repeat it to the Brethren of the 32nd, 31st, and 30th degrees—The Masonic Religion should be, by all of us initates of the high degrees, maintained in the purity of the Luciferian Doctrine. If Lucifer were not God, would Adonay whose deeds prove his cruelty, perdify and hatred of man, barbarism and repulsion for science, would Adonay and his priests, calumniate him? Yes, Lucifer is God, and unfortunately Adonay is also god. For the eternal law is that there is no light without shade, no beauty without ugliness, no white without black, for the absolute can only exist as two gods: darkness being necessary to the statue, and the brake to the locomotive. Thus, the doctrine of Satanism is a heresy; and the true and pure philosophical religion is the belief in Lucifer, the equal of Adonay; but Lucifer, God of Light and God of Good, is struggling for humanity against Adonay, the God of Darkness and Evil…’
            And notice, John Spencer-Davis, Pike (who surely knows more about Masonry than you), says that the 30*-33* Scottish Rite Masons: ‘…That which we must say to a crowd is—We worship a God, but it is the God that one adores without superstition….’, so he is saying they do, or at least should say, they worship a God.

            Also of interest: ‘Anglican Synod Concludes Freemasonry Is Heretical’:

          • John Spencer-Davis

            You say that you own a copy of Pike’s “Morals and Dogma”? The source you link to on the web gives a footnote that the quotation you provide is on page 321 of that book. Could you check, and see if it is there?

            Look up “Taxil Hoax” on Wikipedia. It gives the same quotation and says it is a hoax.

            Also see here:

            Thanks, John

      • John Spencer-Davis

        Yes, these were the proceedings at which the Archbishop of York gave his view that there was no conflict between Christianity and Freemasonry, and where the five non-Freemasons on the panel of enquiry thought there was a problem, and the two Freemasons didn’t think so.

        If it were true that Freemasons worshipped Lucifer, don’t you think this panel would have said so, and been much stronger in its views?

        • Paul Barbara

          @ John Spencer-Davis August 23, 2017 at 16:17
          ‘…The Taxil hoax was an 1890s hoax of exposure by Léo Taxil intended to mock not only Freemasonry but also the Catholic Church’s opposition to it….’ Wikipedia
          ‘Morals and Dogma’ was first printed in 1871. Page 321 refers to the ‘Light Bringer’, not to the quote I have used about the 30* – 33* being told their God was Lucifer; what page that occurs on I don’t know.
          Incidentally, the first page of ‘Morals and Dogma’, opposite Pike’s picture, states in large bold capital letters:
          ‘”Lucifer, the Son of the Morning! Is it he who bears the Light, and with its splendors intolerable blinds feeble, sensual, or selfish Souls? Doubt it not!”

          Illustrious Albert Pike 33°
          Morals and Dogma

          “That which we must say to the crowd is, we worship a God, but it is the God one adores without superstition…. The Masonic religion should be, by all of us initiates of the high degrees, maintained in the purity of the Luciferian Doctrine. If Lucifer were not God, would Adonay (the God of the Christians) whose deeds prove his cruelty, perfidy and hatred of man, barbarism and repulsion to science, would Adonay and his priests calumniate him? “Yes, Lucifer is God, and unfortunately Adonay is also God. For the eternal law is that there is no light without shade, no beauty without ugliness, no white without black, for the absolute can only exist as two Gods…. Thus, the doctrine of Satanism is a heresy; and the true and pure philosophical religion is the belief in Lucifer, the equal of Adonay; but Lucifer, God of Light and God of Good, is struggling for humanity against Adonay, the God of Darkness and Evil.”
          Illustrious Albert Pike 33°
          France 1889 ‘
          I’m not going into this any further – it’s up to you now to search the truth out.

          • John Spencer-Davis

            Well, you can see for yourself that this won’t quite do, Paul, I am sure.

            You say that “Morals and Dogma” was printed in 1871, and that the hoax was perpetrated in the 1890s. Sure, okay. But the point is, does the book in fact contain the quote you say it does, or is it an 1890s hoax that states that the book contains the quote that you say it does? You have yet to demonstrate that one way or the other.

            As to the quote you begin with “Lucifer, Son of the Morning!”, would you please do me a favour? Would you please quote the three sentences previous to that quote?

            If you don’t want to search “Morals and Dogma” to see if it in fact contains the quote you claim it does, please would you consider posting the book to me to search it for myself? I don’t think it would take me very long. Does the book have an index?

            You know, I have done my level best to answer all the questions you have posed to me, and when you consider that I have not answered one you have been extremely quick to point it out. But you have left several of my questions unanswered. You can’t have missed them. You’ve ignored chunks of my postings. Shall I repost them and request answers again?



          • Paul Barbara

            @ John Spencer-Davis August 23, 2017 at 19:33
            I do not wish to go on with this, as the mods will get the hump as it is ‘Off Topic’ and just goes on and on.
            I did not bring up Taxil, I brought up the 30* – 33* quote. I didn’t even bring up Jahbulon.
            The book has a limited index, but it only has two references to Lucifer, none of which is the quote I used.
            My quote does not begin with “Lucifer, Son of the Morning!”, but with “That which we must say to the crowd is, we worship a God, but it is the God one adores without superstition….’
            I won’t part with the book, as I regard it as too valuable to risk losing it, and make a habit of not loaning out books.
            There are umpteen copies of the quote on the internet; ask the UGLE about it.

          • John Spencer-Davis

            “My quote does not begin with “Lucifer, Son of the Morning!”, but with “That which we must say to the crowd is, we worship a God, but it is the God one adores without superstition….’”

            No. Look again at the posting you made at 19:04. Can you see this passage you yourself wrote?

            ‘”Lucifer, the Son of the Morning! Is it he who bears the Light, and with its splendors intolerable blinds feeble, sensual, or selfish Souls? Doubt it not!””

            My emphasis. So we can see that you did begin a quote with “Lucifer, the Son of the Morning!” (my apologies, I did miss out the “the”.) It is this quote that I asked you, please, to add the three previous sentences to. I don’t think there’s a lot of point asking you again, frankly. You won’t do it. So I will do it myself.

            Here is the quote with the three previous sentences written by Pike appended.

            “The Apocalypse is, to those who receive the nineteenth Degree, the Apotheosis of that Sublime Faith which aspires to God alone, and despises all the pomps and works of Lucifer. LUCIFER, the Light-bearer! Strange and mysterious name to give to the Spirit of Darkness! Lucifer, the Son of the Morning! Is it he who bears the Light, and with its splendors intolerable blinds feeble, for traditions are full of sensual or selfish Souls ? Doubt it not!”

            My emphasis. I suggest that everyone will be able to see why I asked you to quote the three previous sentences. Clearly they are wholly incompatible with the idea that Pike was a Lucifer-worshipper, which the disputed and possibly hoaxed quote indicates. The “sublime” faith aspires to “God alone“, and despises the works of Lucifer. With the light he blindsfeeble, sensual or selfish souls. This is clearly an anti-Lucifer quotation. I invite your agreement. This vastly increases the suspicion that the pro-Lucifer “quotation” you presented as evidence of the Luciferian basis of Freemasonry is, in fact, a hoax by Taxil, as I have indicated. I invite your agreement again. Thanks. J

          • Paul Barbara

            @ John Spencer-Davis August 23, 2017 at 16:26
            Although I have the book (a hardback 1954 reprint) I must admit I have not seen the quote in it, and have only read short parts of it, as it is very rambling and tedious. I bought it because I had read it contained the quote, but perhaps it doesn’t.
            But here it is online:
            Another very respected book by Masons is J. S. M. Ward’s ‘Freemasonry and the Ancient Gods’, which basically holds that all Gods are equal
            Here are two sites with what may be useful information and quotes:
            This latter gives a different source for the Pike quote:
            ‘..Recorded by A.C. De La Rive, La Femme et L’enfant dans La Franc-Maconnerie Universelle, Page 588. Cited from ‘The question of freemasonry, ( 2nd edition 1986 by Edward Decker pp12-14)…’

          • Paul Barbara

            @ John Spencer-Davis August 23, 2017 at 21:26
            Sorry, John, you are right, but it was not done intentionally. I took the quote from the following website, and as you can see, it is the heading; I had not even noticed it; the actual quote I wished to refer to is in a blue box, without any three sentences before it:

            Re Jahbulon: ‘Masonry, Religion, and Jahbulon; By a Masonic Grand High Priest
            The ‘Holy’ Royal Arch Degree’s Secret Name for the God of ‘the Craft’ of Freemasonry’:
            It might be difficult to find on Masonic websites, as it’s a ‘Secret Word’.
            Who do they actually ‘worship’?
            Well, according to Pike’s quote (if he made it) it’s Lucifer; according to others it’s TGAOTU, others Jahbulon.
            Then there’s J.S.M. Ward saying all God’s are equal, in which case it wouldn’t seem to matter what he/she was called.

          • John Spencer-Davis

            Does not the fact that the site you copied and pasted the quote from uses Pike’s words so selectively, not suggest anything to you?

            I’m off to bed. Carry on tomorrow or thereabouts. J

        • John Spencer-Davis

          You may not wish to go on with it, Paul, but I can assure you that I am going to. J

    • Node

      Tune in at 8 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, September 6, 2017, to watch the livestream of Dr. Leroy Hulsey’s presentation [of his evaluation of WTC7 collapse] from the University of Alaska Fairbanks.

      Thanks Paul. In the UK, that’s 1 am Thursday 8th Sep. Reckon I’ll try to catch that live. I’ve set an alarm.

      Should be interesting. Not getting my hopes up, though. Would THEY allow the NIST report to be definitively disproved? THEY’ve had enough time to spike it one way or another. I’ll keep my fingers crossed but I’m expecting something less than conclusive.

        • Node

          We’ll see. The spooks have had plenty of time to prepare for the release of this analysis. They don’t need to prevent its release, just somehow ensure that it’s not definitive, that it leaves some room for argument. They don’t even need a good argument – their present one is that a computer model nobody is allowed to see proves their case!

          There are so many ways Hulsey could’ve been stopped – pressure on his University, interfering with the 3D modelling software, ‘accidents’, recruiting one of his PhD students, etc – the fact that he’s been allowed to finish his investigation suggests that it isn’t 100% conclusive.

          I bet Popular Mechanics has already written its refutation!

          • Clark

            Sorry, but I feel I should mention that from an outsider’s perspective this comment seems remarkably paranoid and full of assumptions.

            There is unlikely ever to be anything conclusive about the collapse of WTC7 because the investigation didn’t begin until years after the collapse, and most of the debris had long since been disposed of. But for the presumed conspirators, there is an easy get-out route in any case; just announce that at about 11:00 on 9/11 a military demolition team was ordered to bring the building down as safely and quickly as possible, but it was kept secret. Such an announcement would even cover discovery of explosive residues, the most conclusive evidence that could emerge.

            Military demolition missions typically take hours rather than weeks; look it up. Jessie Ventura was even a member of such a team before his high profile career as politician and MSM conspiracy pedlar. At what time and date was 9/11 designated an act of war?

          • KingofWelshNoir


            You say: ‘Military demolition missions typically take hours rather than weeks…’

            Are you talking about uncontrolled demolitions in which they just blow stuff up? Or are you claiming that the military are capable of doing a controlled demolition of a building, bringing it down into its own footprint, and setting the whole thing up in a matter of hours?

            Can you provide a link to an example of this?

            Personally, I don’t believe the military would even have teams trained in controlled demolition, why would they?
            But I’m happy to be corrected.

          • mog

            If military teams could bring down a skyscraper in a controlled demolition in just a few hours, why do commercial demolition companies spend weeks on the job?

            (And this is in a burning building, in an emergency zone, taking precautions not to be noticed by anyone. Perhaps in a normal scenario, a military team could do it in a just few minutes).

          • Clark

            Military demolition – unsurprisingly, information is somewhat sparse, but you could try reading the list of missions on the following somewhat related page:


            Yes, I think a military demolition team could have rigged Building 7 on the afternoon of 9/11. In fact for various reasons I think it quite likely, and if so it would explain a lot.

            Of course military teams are trained in the appropriate use of explosives; even Craig got the chance to play with high explosives as part of his FCO training (would you stand near Craig if he was handling explosives? “Er, is there any of that scotch left?”). In fact I’d expect a lot of cross-over between the explosives experts community and the military. How to use explosives to most effect would naturally be a large part of such training; similar principles must be taught for both civilian and military demolition, and presumably quarrying and excavation etc. Using a structure’s own weight to help break itself up is a principle whether you’re quarrying, demolishing or fighting an enemy.

            “If military teams could bring down a skyscraper in a controlled demolition in just a few hours, why do commercial demolition companies spend weeks on the job?”

            That’s why I asked what time the attacks were declared an act of war or a state of emergency; very different safety and legal rules apply. I think it has bearing upon the swift clean-up versus collection of evidence argument, too. How much control constitutes “controlled demolition”? Building 7’s collapse wasn’t perfect; it seriously damaged two other buildings.

      • Paul Barbara

        @ Node August 26, 2017 at 02:40
        Just in case anyone misses Hulsey’s presentation because of a slip, 8 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, September 6, 2017 is 1 am Thursday 7th Sep., not the 8th!

    • Maxter

      The judge (banker) knows about everything that is being read out to him! Is the purpose of this to let everyone know that Robert knows whats going on? We are all wards of the state, vassals, until we rebut this and claim our estates as they remain abandoned and administered as such by the corporate government! Lost at sea!

  • Paul Barbara

    Just when it appeared the Western plots against Syria were being squelched, up comes Israel.
    ‘Israel threatens to bomb Bashar Al-Assad’s palace if Iran intervenes further’:

    I won’t give my thoughts on this here, but y’all need to know about it.
    I’ll just say Western ‘governments’ and their lap-dogs the UN don’t appear to have condemned the War Criminal for threatening such totally illegal threats.

    But then, what’s new???

  • KingofWelshNoir

    On an earlier page about the Westminster Bridge attack there was some discussion about the fact that some of the victims seemed to have inexplicably lost their shoes.

    If you watch this video at 47:54 the guy – Ole Dammegard – claims this is a signal to the initiated, and shows examples from the Charlottesville affair. Make of it what you will.

    • John Goss

      I watched the video to where he was promoting Ole Dammegard’s site and found it quite believable. The masonic messages from the footwear lying around after one of these events relates to “a slipshod shoe that was my mother’s” which is used in the initiation ceremony. As to the crisis actors’ site he mentions that actually exists.

        • Paul Barbara

          @ KingofWelshNoir August 31, 2017 at 21:34
          He is the’real deal’, I have heard him speak in a small hall in London (I believe it was about the assassination of Olof Palme).
          But he does inadvertently slip up – don’t we all?
          He is totally ‘on board’ re 9/11.

          • John Goss

            Russia Today has reported on the Swedish newspaper Expressen sending reporters round to intimidate ordinary people who make adverse anti-MSM comments on social media. They knock on individuals’ doors catching people unawares read the comment they may have made a week ago and thrust a microphone in their face. Bet they would not do it to Ole Dammegard!

            Expressen was one of the Swedish newspapers which plastered headlines of Julian Assange and Rape all over its pages.

  • KingofWelshNoir


    I asked you to supply a link in support of your contention that the US military had teams capable of controlled demolition. I checked out the link you gave, this is the first paragraph:

    The Underwater Demolition Teams (UDT) were an elite special-purpose force established by the United States Navy during World War II. They also served during the Korean War and the Vietnam War. Their primary function was to reconnoiter and destroy enemy defensive obstacles on beaches prior to amphibious landings. They also were the frogmen who retrieved astronauts after splashdown in the Mercury through Apollo manned space flight programs…

    Nothing whatsoever to do with controlled demolition, just some specialist underwater fighting outfit who seem to have been the forerunners of the Navy Seals. I mean, really!

    • mog

      Clark claims makes the case that there are military personel who are trained in demolition techniques (look up ‘combat engineer’ or ‘sapper’) but this is not making a case that they were present at WTC7 on 911.
      It strikes me as ridiculously unlikely that any team (military or ‘civilian’) could have done the following on 911, especially in the time concerned (WTC1 came down at 10.30am causing damage to WTC7, fires were not noted in the building until after 12noon, on most floors not until after 2pm):
      (i) got the relevant expertise to the site to assess whether WTC7 was in such a dangerous condition and needed to be brought down,
      (ii) contacted the relevant teams of experts to perform demolition, pulled them off of whatever job they were on at the time, transported them to the WTC site, briefed them,
      (iii) set up a chain of command and protocols to give the demolition team access and to communicate to all rescue parties at the site that the domolition was going to be covert and nobody should mention the presence of demolition experts working at the site,
      (iv) produced a viable demolition plan for bringing down a huge structure without causing significant damage,
      (v) assembled all the necessary equipment, which must include -aside from the usual for demolition work- emergency power, fire protection equipment and breathing apparatus, probably climbing equipment to scale the broken stairwells etc.
      (vi) install dozens of charges in a burning building amongst the chaos of a massive disaster zone,
      (vii) organise a cessation of the rescue operation, clear the area and detonate WTC7

      Now, I grant that some pretty speculative stuff gets posted on this discussion thread, and that military teams can do some remarkable things, but, for my money, to suggest that WTC7 was demolished as a response to 911 is simply absurd.

      • Paul Barbara

        @ mog September 4, 2017 at 15:03
        Apart from which, IF a military team had done it ‘as the building was in danger of collapsing all over the place’, why would they need to keep it secret???

      • Node

        Mog : It strikes me as ridiculously unlikely that any team (military or ‘civilian’) could have done the following on 911, especially in the time concerned ….

        I asked Clark the same question a few months ago. He evaded it several times but I insisted he should offer a plausible schedule or stop promoting impromptu army demolition as an explanation for WTC7’s collapse. He eventually suggested 2 hours to assemble and transport the team and all their equipment and another 2 or 3 hours to plan, place and detonate the explosives. I concluded that he didn’t care whether his scenario was plausible, just as long as it couldn’t be definitively disproved.

        • mog

          In the absence of such a reply from Clark, I suggest that the theory of a ‘demolition on the same afternoon’ is a bulwark argument. If someone accepts that WTC7 was a controlled demolition, but is abolutely insistent that the towers were brought down by fire and aircraft only, then such a position can only be maintained by claiming such an implausible scheme.
          To admit that any aspect of building 7’s demolition was pre-planned (the team, the demolition plan, the materials, the insurance, the secrecy), is a de fact admission that the CD evidence concerning WTC1 and WTC2 needs to be taken seriously. Seeing as it has been Clark’s argument for (I would estimate) around 2000 comments that the controlled demolition theory of the towers is ‘silly’ or a ‘psyop’ or ‘a cult’, I am inclined to think this is the reason for his same day demolition theory.

          As for Kempe, he seems to be a hit and run commenter who has steadfastly refused to answer basic questions the whole time I have read this thread (approx three years).

          • KingofWelshNoir

            ‘To admit that any aspect of building 7’s demolition was pre-planned…is a de fact admission that the CD evidence concerning WTC1 and WTC2 needs to be taken seriously.’

            I agree, but in my view it almost makes the Twin Towers a sideshow. WTC 7 is like the brick in the game Jenga that brings the whole lot down. If it was a controlled demolition then it follows inexorably that it would have been wired prior to the day and that Al Qaeda couldn’t possibly have done it. Therefore the official narrative is a lie and the US authorities know it. The implications are shattering. The fact that planes hit the Twin Towers means that people can argue till the cows come home about the jet fuel fires, but there is no equivalent for WTC 7 which is why such pains have been taken to keep people in the dark about its existence. When I first saw the footage of the first responders moving the people back saying they were going to blow up the building, I couldn’t believe it and ordered online the CNN commemorative DVD from which it was allegedly taken. It wasn’t on it, because it was on the 2002 version, but I received the 2003 version from which that particular piece of footage had been removed. Says it all.

  • John Goss

    There has been much comment claiming that articles which do not support the official viewpoint on 9/11 twin towers (that planes flew into the buildings and somehow caused a collapse) are not peer-reviewed in an attempt to belittle the authors. I suspect those making the criticism have little understanding of what peer-review actually means. Here are some 28 peer-reviewed academic articles, some of which you would have to purchase to read. They are not cheap.

    However, one of them is about the peer-review process, or rather flaws in it, regarding 9/11, and it has been placed in common ownership providing acknowledgement of author and source is made. It is by John D. Wyndham and has been peer-reviewed. Even universities like Cambridge here in the UK have failed to look critically at the cause of 9/11 building collapses. Wyndham suspects the reason that universities are shying away from true criticism is due to a potential drying up of funds. In other words he who pays the piper calls the tune.

    “The great silence on 9/11 from the universities indicates that they are presently unable to examine this subject openly. And overall, the presence in academic and other institutions of large amounts of corporate money is affecting research and the peer review process as well as their outcomes in many disciplines such as medical and drug research “

      • Paul Barbara

        @ mog September 4, 2017 at 15:31
        Kempe surfaced on another thread recently, so I reminded him a number of us here were awaiting responses, for all the good it did.

    • Node

      @ Daniel

      The writer of this confused article refers five times to “the only paper which passed the scrutiny of peer review process regarding the WTC tragedy.” You have to dig deep to find he is referring to a paper by Bazant and Zhou called “Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?”

      For example, he says : “Therefore WTC 7 did not free fall because debris which was in free fall arrived on the ground first. This is basic physics which truther websites do not explain. NIST surmised that far from being impossible, the collapse turns out to have been inevitable. This was confirmed as a result of the findings of a peer-reviewed paper – the only paper which passed the scrutiny of peer review process regarding the WTC tragedy.”

      OK, firstly the Bazant-Zhou paper is about the Twin Towers and doesn’t once mention WTC7 so NIST’s theory on WTC7 is NOT confirmed by this paper.


      There’s a good explanation why Truthers have no peer reviewed articles supporting their case. This video suggested by Mog above is a good summary :
      I can think of no plausible explanation why the official narrative has received no peer-reviewed scientific support for the last 16 years. Can you, Daniel?

  • Node

    They haven’t finished a complete analysis but based on the work done so far Hulsey asserts WTC7 could not have collapsed by fire! The presentation was a bit difficult to follow at times as he clicked back and fore between different slides. I’m sure someone will soon present a more polished presentation of these findings. But his conclusions were clear and very exciting.

    Here’s my notes:

    Hulsey described this as a progress report rather than a finished study.
    They recreated the geometry of WTC7 in Autocad using 2 different software programmes to cross-check each other.
    They have not yet finished analyses of progressive collapse models. Don’t want to publish them till they are certain of their science.
    They have finished a detailed analysis of the structural members that NIST claim caused the collapse.
    They proved that the girder couldn’t have become unseated from column 79 due to thermal expansion.
    This failure was only possible in the NIST model because NIST omitted crucial components of the structural joints (side plates and stiffeners).
    Thus NIST model showed girder expanded 5.5″ to the West.
    Whereas University of Alaska model (both software programmes) showed 2″ to the EAST(!) in worst case scenario.
    They modeled all possible combinations of composite concrete and steel and concluded thermal expansion caused by office fire couldn’t have caused structural failure.
    Hinted that their work modeling progressive collapse would also contradict NIST, but not yet ready for publication.

    Everything will be offered for peer review.

    • mog

      Thanks for the summary Node.

      The very least that can be said of the work in Alaska is that it conforms to basic scientific procedure. Defenders of the fire theory (and damage in the towers) seem more confident about their own judgements than those of any such scientific process…
      (Clark writes: ‘I have looked at such links before, and I’m aware of many shortcomings of the NIST reports. But my acceptance of damage-fire-collapse, specifically for the Twin Towers, is not based on NIST. It is my own assessment based primarily upon the extensive video records and the historical information about the buildings’ design and construction’.)

      • Clark

        Mog, stop conflating matters; so doing misrepresents my position. My assessment of the Twin Towers is impact-damage-fire-collapse.

        • mog

          I refute that Clark.

          The issue I draw attention to is about whether one gives credence to or sees importance in the official accounts – whether the NIST reports live up to their professed ‘scientific’ standards.
          You have made clear that you are satisfied with your own evaluation with regards to the towers report, (and that you suspect controlled demolition in WTC7). The NIST reports -to you, seem little more than of passing interest. Consequently, the critiques of those reports hold little interest for you.
          That is fine for you.
          The point being is that what I think is important, what the 911 research community thinks is important, what the structural engineering and architecture comminity should think is important, is whether NIST did a thorough investigation and conformed to rigorous scientific procedure. If they didn’t, then surely we are obliged to call them out. After all can we rely on your assessment for understanding 911 and all that has followed? I would not make that claim for my assessment.

          That is how I think it works : we have created institutions like courts, research academies, investigative journalism (as was) etc. so that we don’t have to take some individual’s ‘assessment’, but can, in theory, make conclusions as a society.

  • Dave

    Nonsense, I didn’t know his gender and experimented with they/them/their, but felt that was less polite than saying him/her to avoid getting it wrong and causing faux offence. But I think the main point holds that it is knowingly dishonest to blame the impact of a plane rather than controlled demolition, once controlled demolition has been explained more than once.

1 114 115 116 117 118 134

Comments are closed.