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

1 117 118 119 120 121 134
  • John Goss

    Tonight I watched a video of a building, not small, apparently vanishing into its own footprint. It was in Mexico. There have been earthquakes there. It looked something like WTC7 going down. I hope and pray that nobody was hurt (rather that nobody was in the building) because anybody in that building is unlikely to have survived.

  • Daniel

    mog, Do you know what a controlled demolition looks like? Are you aware of what the safety standards are in relation to controlled demolitions? Are you aware that they don’t occur 370 feet from buildings that have collapsed that are much taller than they are amid chaos, destruction and death? Are you denying the photographic evidence of the damage to WTC 7? Are you claiming fire chief Daniel Nigo was lying in his statement? Are you aware what the wiring of a such a building for a controlled demolition entails? Are you seriously contending that after 16 years nobody among the 50k people who used that building every day, were suspicious or were aware that construction work to the building suggesting it was being wired for explosives was taking place or have since come forward during that time? And are you seriously contending that after 16 years its realistic to expect for no peer review paper to have been produced proving the controlled demolition thesis?

  • Paul Barbara

    ‘The Big Lie Is Killing Us — 9-11, Boston Marathon, and Port Arthur’:

    ‘What was I thinking of, going around the state of Alabama in my campaign, never once mentioning the words Nine-Eleven. Of course everything hangs from that one terrible sin. Almost everything, anyway. Here is how I see it today.

    To Plan a World War

    The cabal (World Government, the crims, whatever name you prefer) planned many years before 2001 to stage a knockdown of the World Trade Center. It’s even probable that the Towers were in purpose-built for this. I lived in Manhattan at that time (early 1970s) and we residents were not too pleased with the giant new buildings. Similarly, as I argue below, the planning was instigated before 1970, to finger Arabs for the “attack.” All of this was part of a brilliant plan to get nations to enter a new world war — World War III.

    How could anyone want a world war, you may ask. Good question, but the record now shows that some person (British lords Esher and Grey) wanted World War I — and made it happen. Poor soldiers living in trenches for more than a year – imagine it – and none of their government leaders, for instance, in Germany and America, seemed to have a clue. The dirt on the Great War (1914-1918) has now been exposed by Gerry Docherty and Jim MacGregor in their book 2014 Hidden History. WWII is likely to have used a similar approach. (Note; in Greg Hallett’s book, Hitler Was a British Agent we learn that Hitler spent the year 1913 at … wait for it … Tavistock in London.)…..’

    She’s certainly not perfect (she supports Trump, for a start) but she is gung-ho on 9/11 and the Boston Marathon ‘Inside Jobs’.
    Hope she gets in as a Senator, but I can’t see it happening.
    All the same, she’s showing the Truther flag in her campaign – can’t be bad!

    • KingofWelshNoir

      ‘Hope she gets in as a Senator, but I can’t see it happening.’

      Ha ha she will be lucky to remain living if she carries on like this! I get the impression that nobodies can say what they like about the Dark Cabal but people in positions of influence (Michael Meacher, Robin Cook?) better beware.

  • Paul Barbara


    ‘…….The trucks carried several US-made Oshkosh L-ATV vehicles, dozens of pickups, different types of weapons and ammunitions, according to Syrian opposition sources. Some trucks also carried fuel and other supplies likely for the US bases in Syria.

    Since June, the US has supplied the SDF with over 1,600 trucks with weapons and ammunition to support its operation in Raqqa city. The latest shipment is likely a part of the US effort to boost the SDF advance in Deir Ezzor governorate in order to capture the strategic oil fields in the eastern Deir Ezzor countryside before the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and its allies reach them.’

    The reason for the US’s illegal presence and attacks in Syria, a Sovereign State, are blatantly obvious – it is NOT to attack Daesh, but to weaken Assad’s Syria, as they are also doing in Iraq, to Balkanise the countries.
    And the rest of the world sits on their hands, or supports the blatant illegality.

  • Paul Barbara


    ‘Strike Fighter Squadron 31 [also known as VFA-31 or the Tomcatters] of the US Navy has released an unofficial video promoting ‘successful’ actions of the military force against the Syrian government in Syria as well as ISIS in Syria and Iraq.

    The video provides a look at a missile strike at the Syrian military airfield in Al-Shayrat (2:35), strikes against Syrian government forces near Al-Tanf at the Syrian-Iraqi border (5:49), a downing of the Syrian Arab Air Force’s Su-22 south of Tabqah (6:12) and an Iranian unmanned aerial combat vehicle near At-Tanf (6:27) as well as mutliple cases when Strike Fighter Squadron 31 air craft were “flying near” warplanes of the Russian Aerospace Forces operating against terrorists in Syria.

    The Strike Fighter Squadron 31 is attached USS George H.W. Bush carrier strike group. In August 2017, it returned from a seven month combat deployment in support of Operation Inherent Resolve (OIR) – the US military operational name for its intervention in Syria and Iraq.

    No doubts this video will boost morale of US military personnel.

    However, this does not change the fact that the US-led coalition has no legal basis to operate in Syria and to continue its attempts to overthrow the country’s internationally recognized government.’

    This downloaded video should go viral; the originators removed it, but luckily South Front had already grabbed it.
    Shows the US’s ‘True Colours’, i.e. Murderous War Criminal Hypocritical Liars.

      • Node

        War porn. Money shot compilation. Cowardly.

        I dare say military conditioning trains these pilots not to question their orders, that their commanders know best, that they’re fighting for good and against evil, but it’s no wonder so many veterans end up as psychological basket cases. Line up the cross-hairs, press a button, everyone within 100m of the target dies, fly home for lunch. Pilots aren’t stupid. They have the intelligence and the imagination to know that the awesome power they deploy so casually must take its toll of innocents. Maybe in the theatre of war they cope by just refusing to think about such things, but back in civvie street their own children remind them of what they have done, and how they would feel if someone killed their children, and they can’t pretend any more, and their minds snap. The puppet masters wreak misery and destruction on both sides.

        • Paul Barbara

          @ Node September 22, 2017 at 16:55
          Those pilots knew precisely what they were doing. They sleep well at nights (nightmares or ‘night terrors’ mostly come to decent folk, people with empathy, courtesy of ‘Old Nick’, such as myself).
          These guys know what they are doing – here’s what happens to those who know what they are doing, and question it – ‘On the Dark Side in Al Doura – A Soldier in the Shadows’:

          • Ruthie67

            I have a friend who was a Marine and served in Desert Storm. He was also responsible for the deaths of many people. Desert Storm was 1990-91. He still suffers horrendous nightmares from the things he saw, and did, due to orders from the chain of command. He didn’t want to do those things, and his wife says that he often wakes up screaming in a cold sweat, and it’s been around 26 years since he was there. He rarely sleeps well at night. With respect, I don’t think assumptions can be made. It is an individual reaction, so you probably shouldn’t make statements on how those men sleep at night unless you know them personally.

          • Clark

            Ruthie67: “With respect, I don’t think assumptions can be made”

            Well said, but maybe you should save your respect for people with more self awareness. It’s obvious that the sort of conspiracy theorists you find on threads like this are afflicted with a sense of their own superiority, eg. “decent folk, people with empathy, […] such as myself”. They are incapable or unwilling to recognise that self-superiority is what motivates human conflict in the first place.

  • Paul Barbara

    ‘Do you believe in miracles’?’:

    ‘New Book Marks a Return to 9/11 for the Truth Movement’s Most Prolific Author’:
    “Given how disastrous the official account has been for America and the world in general, perhaps some newspapers or TV networks will have the courage to point out that the Bush-Cheney account of 9/11, like the Bush-Cheney argument for attacking Iraq, was a lie.”
    — David Ray Griffin

    ‘It would have taken a miracle. A bunch of them, actually.
    For the official story of 9/11 to be true, numerous physically impossible things would need to have taken place that day. This is the case made by prolific 9/11 researcher David Ray Griffin in his latest book, Bush and Cheney: How They Ruined America and the World. It is the twelfth Griffin-penned volume that takes on the official government claims of what happened—and did not happen—on 9/11. It also marks his return to the subject for the first time since 2011’s 9/11 Ten Years Later: How State Crimes Against Democracy Succeed……’

    • Silvio

      Sorry Paul, it looks like you must have made your post on the review of the new David Ray Griffin book a few seconds before I attempted my own post on the same topic. Hence we have two posts on the topic with the same timestamp.

      • Paul Barbara

        @ Silvio September 29, 2017 at 02:17
        No sweat, Silvio – yours is much more detailed than mine – I just copied out that he had published a new book.

  • Silvio

    Six years after his last book on the topic, Professor David Ray Griffin returns to the 9/11 debate with another book that exposes the sham 9/11 false flag event. However, in his latest book, Bush and Cheney: How They Ruined America and the World, Griffin also looks at how Western societies’ acceptance (for the most part) of the official 9/11 conspiracy theory enabled the Bush administration’s (and allies’) disastrous meddling in the Arab and Muslim world and the administration’s curtailment of traditional constitutional rights and freedoms enjoyed by US citizens.

    Here are a few paragraphs from a review by the Canadian blogger Craig McKee of :

    For the official story of 9/11 to be true, numerous physically impossible things would need to have taken place that day. This is the case made by prolific 9/11 researcher David Ray Griffin in his latest book, Bush and Cheney: How They Ruined America and the World. It is the twelfth Griffin-penned volume that takes on the official government claims of what happened—and did not happen—on 9/11. It also marks his return to the subject for the first time since 2011’s 9/11 Ten Years Later: How State Crimes Against Democracy Succeed.

    While the first part of Bush and Cheney focuses on the broader issues suggested by the title (including the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, the proliferation of Islamophobia, the shredding of the US Constitution, and the advent of drone warfare) the second part is devoted to Griffin’s detailed research into evidence that contradicts the official story of 9/11.

    Griffin ties what happened on 9/11 to actions, or non-actions, by the “Bush-Cheney administration,” although he gives the former vice-president greater weight than he does the former president. Nevertheless, Griffin is clearly stating that the decisions made by this administration on 9/11—and in the years that followed—have had devastating consequences for the world.
    In this article, I’ll restrict myself to examining two chapters that deal directly with the destruction of the three World Trade Center towers. The chapters are entitled “The Miraculous Destruction of the Twin Towers” and “The Miraculous Destruction of Building 7.” (Other 9/11-related chapters include “Why Bush and Cheney Should Not Be Trusted on 9/11,” “The Miraculous Attack on the Pentagon,” and “The Miraculous Transformation of Mohamed Atta.”)

    More at:

  • Node

    The Oklahoma City Bombing was an obvious inside job from the word go. I haven’t paid it much attention for years until watching an old Corbett Report tonight when I was struck by its uncanny similarity to the events of 911.

    The alleged bomber had links to intelligence agencies.

    Multiple reports of other bombs exploding in the building, including two unexploded ones discovered afterwards.

    Whistle-blowers alleging a cover-up, tampered evidence, falsifying of witness statements in official investigation

    Multiple reports from first responders flatly contradicting the official story.

    Many credible advance warnings the Murrah Building would be bombed.

    Initial news reporting of the incident completely at odds with what was later reported.

    Somebody phoned in a report that “the Murrah Building has been bombed” 24 minutes before the first blast!!

    FBI agent claimed he had been “tipped by pager” not to go into work that day.

    Surveillance video is known to exist of the truck bomb being parked and 2 bombers leaving it before it exploded but it has never been released.

    Many documents incriminating the Clintons were destroyed in the blast.

    The Anti-terrorism and effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 was passed as a direct consequence of the bombing.


    Brigadier General Ben Partin (expert in explosive weapons systems) produced a report on the damage : The evidence is conclusive that the Ryder truck bomb could not have accounted for the damage done to the Murrah Building …. Damage indicates contact explosives placed directly on the beams …. We are supposed to believe that a blast wave travelled through [column] B4 leaving the sheet rock almost untouched and completely destroyed the column further away ….

    Dr Samual T. Cohen – Nuclear Physicist (inventor of the neutron bomb) : I believe that the demolitions charges in the building, that were placed inside at certain key concrete columns, did the primary damage to the Murrah Federal Building. It would have been absolutely impossible, and against the laws of nature, for a truck full of fertiliser and oil … no matter how much was used … to bring the building down.

    • Paul Barbara

      @ Node September 30, 2017 at 02:01
      Jolly good summary! Some of the points I didn’t know, like ‘..documents incriminating the Clintons..’ and the 24-minute premature phone call.
      Also the ATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives), who had an office in the building, were also warned not to go in to their offices that day (though no such warning was given to Day Care Centre: ‘ ‘…Of the 21 children who were inside the day-care center on the morning of April 19, the morning of the bombing, 15 are dead, including all four of the infants by the window. Five are hospitalized, burned and broken. Only one returned home, a little girl with a broken leg. All three teachers in the center were also killed…’ :
      ‘TERROR IN OKLAHOMA: THE CHILDREN; Tender Memories of Day-Care Center Are All That Remain After The Bomb’:

      Here’s another article:

      These Luciferian socio/psychopaths are still at it – they just love abusing, torturing and killing people, especially kids (see also next post).

    • Paul Barbara

      @ Node September 30, 2017 at 02:01
      I ‘borrowed’ your comment, for the 9/11 UK Truth Forum:
      Hope that’s OK. I didn’t put your name on it, I just said ‘one of the commenters on Craig Murray’s blog, but if you wish I can add your name, as the 9/11 Forum is ‘editable’.
      I post as ‘outsider’ on that Forum, though many of them know me.

      • Node

        @ Paul Barbara. No, I don’t mind, do what you want with it.

        There was much more I could’ve included but it was harder to summarise in bullet points — technical detail pointing to pre-planned demolition, the links between ‘terrorists’ and security services, how the investigation was controlled by ‘safe hands’ (Larry Potts), even the comparison between McVie and Bin Laden, both of whom indisputably worked for the US military before supposedly turning renegade, but with strong evidence they both continued as ‘sheep-dipped- agents, both resulting in dubious ‘deaths.’

        The Corbett Report is, as usual, excellent. It updates (2015) and summarises a few previous documentaries and adds new material about McVie’s background. Also, it comes with a transcript and sources, which enables me to give more detail about the 2 points you mentioned:


        “…. the bombing also conveniently destroyed a number of documents that were proving to be problematic for the Clinton administration. Documents that had all somehow or other ended up being housed at the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City in April of 1995.

        CRAIG ROBERTS: “Day 1, hour 2 of the bombing the most significant event that happened is when they said found other bombs in the building. The second most significant event is when they moved everybody back and held them back there were still people alive trapped in the building but they came in with 2 trucks and backed them up to the Murrah Building and a bunch of these guys dressed in blue jackets with no letters on the back started taking boxes of files out and started putting them on this truck.

        DON BROWNING: We were told by a blonde female agent that there were files so serious to the government that until the files were located there would not be any recovery effort.

        V.Z. LAWTON: If you remember the Whitewater investigation in Arkansas, all of the paperwork was stored in the Murrah Building. They had FBI just over in the fields to the west of the Murrah Building just picking up paper almost all day long.”


        ROGER CHARLES: “The government has claimed that they had absolutely no prior warning and yet we start off with the interesting little episode where two Air Force bomb squad guys, and these are very special Air Force bomb squad guys that we know were cleared to work for Presidential security, VIP security and so on. They were ordered from Kirtland Air Force Base in New Mexico to Oklahoma City arriving on Monday the 17th of April, 2 days before the bombing. Their orders were to go to a motel and wait there until contacted by the FBI.

        I had become aware of this information in 1997, developed some confirming information but the key was that in the summer of 2001, two journalists had separate conversations with one of the individuals, one of the two individuals on this bomb squad team. He admitted he was there when asked in separate conversations by both journalists. ‘Why he was there?’ He responded ‘You’ll have to ask the FBI’.”

        INTERVIEWEE: “There was this fairly large truck with a trailer behind it and it had a shield on the side of the door and it said Bomb Disposal or Bomb Squad below it.

        20/20 REPORTER: Authorities now claim in federal investigative reports, that the huge ominous truck with it’s trailer was being used by deputy to run routine errands.

        Other documents obtained by 20/20 show that someone called the Executive Secretariats Office at the Justice Department in Washington and said ‘The Murrah Building had been bombed but this was 24 minutes before the blast. No action was apparently taken.”


  • Paul Barbara

    ‘Victims of Rashideen Betrayed & Politicized by Western Media, Exploited by the White Helmets – Part One’:

    There’s ‘Freedom Fighters’ for you, brought to Syria courtesy of the US,UK and the rest of their War Criminal cronies (just like Reagan said of the barbaric ‘Contras’ the US had set upon Nicaragua: ”the rebels seeking to overthrow the Nicaraguan Government were the ”moral equal of our Founding Fathers….” ).

    • Clark

      US military adventures have always been unpopular with the great majority of governments represented at the UN; check the voting record. Sorry to burst your bubble, but you and your ilk aren’t “waking up” anyone; thank God, the majority of humanity are already more intelligent than you give credit for.

  • Paul Barbara

    ‘George Soros is funding the independence of Catalonia’:
    Gulp…Voltaire net is generally on the money…
    Here it is again, where it can be blown up enough to read what’s in the ‘Box’:

    I just put it up for info – I don’t know what to make of it myself.
    One thing I am sure of, those people who faced the Guardia Civile wanted the Referendum, and didn’t go because they got a few bob off Soros. Perhaps the organisers did, though.
    That evil git is determined to cause mayhem right up till he ‘passes over’ (or ‘under’), not too long to go by the look of him.

    • SA

      Caution is always nescessary in blind backing of populist movements until one is clear who is behind them. I know it is not the same but in February 2014 during the Maidsn protests in Kiev our press was portraying the demonstration as a peaceful one whilst on RT they showed scenes of ‘protestors’ storming police positions and throwing Molotov cocktails. Later also snipers shooting at police and protestors was shown and all the time our pressshowed innocent protestors. It was at that time that I began to take serious notice of RT.

      • Paul Barbara

        @ SA October 2, 2017 at 05:45
        I accidentally put that up on this thread, should have been on the Catalonia thread.

  • John Goss

    Christopher Bollyn does not believe that mini-nukes were used on 9/11 and that is disinformation put out by those who wish to create confusion among truthers. And how often have we in the past seen non-truthers also deploying these tactics?

    I still think that some kind of thermo-nuclear weapons must have been used for there to be underground pools of molten metal and rock which continued burning almost three months after the demolition. I could be wrong. I am willing to admit it if I am shown to be wrong. But somebody would have to give me a believable alternative for the underground volcano phenomenon.

    Christopher Bollyn is probably right that agents are working to sow confusion. Here are his thoughts.

    • Paul Barbara

      @ John Goss October 2, 2017 at 12:05
      There is no reason on earth all Truthers should have the same views. There are many rock-solid Truuthers who believe there were no planes (or as in my case, that the pics we saw on the TV and in videos were faked), that no plane/a missile/explosives blew the holes in the Pentagon; that there were/weren’t hijackers involved; that mini nukes were used; that nanothermite/ate was used, in conjunction with other explosives;that the US/Saudis/Unmentionables/Pakistan (or a mix of two or three or four of them) were responsible.
      Big deal. What we agree on is that it was not as the US says it was; most agree it was an ‘Inside Job’, and a few still believe it was ‘LIHOP’.
      We are, or should be, a broad church (but talk of ‘Beam Weapons’ does get my goat!).

        • Paul Barbara

          @ John Goss October 2, 2017 at 21:37
          John, I do not say there were no planes, I say that the ‘planes’ seen on TV/video were faked. That does not necessarily mean no plane or other airborne object didn’t strike the towers.
          I’m with ‘Ace’ Baker on this one.

          • John Goss

            If you read the early comments one of them talks about a small plane.


            Planes, no planes, missiles. It matters of course. But it is not the major story that took us into so many unnecessary and unrelated wars. If the bigggest plane in the world had crashed into the twin towers it could not have brought them down. No way.

          • Clark

            Paul Barbara, October 2, 23:06: “I do not say there were no planes, I say that the ‘planes’ seen on TV/video were faked”

            And you say that because a few individual frames extracted from low resolution analogue video don’t look like perfect still photographs.

            Do everyone a favour; test your assumptions by applying the same “reasoning” beyond the context of your favourite conspiracy theories. Download some old analogue video clips with fast action in them – football goals broadcast in 2001 would do – extract some single frames from them, and publish for all to see. “Look, that doesn’t look like a football, and there’s a double image! The US government must have faked all the football so they can impose One World Government and kill us all!”

    • Node

      In the first link, Christopher Bollyn expresses fresh thoughts and original thinking.
      In the second link he rehashes old ideas and offers no new insights.

  • Paul Barbara


    ‘The US-led coalition has carried out airstrikes on Hezbollah fighters fighting ISIS in the Syrian desert, SkyNews Arabia reported on Monday citing own corresponded.

    According to the report, 8 Hezbollah members were killed in the raid.

    سكاي نيوز عربية-الآن ✔@SkyNewsArabia_B
    مراسلنا: مقتل 8 عناصر من ميلشيات #حزب_الله اللبناني في غارة جوية شرق #سوريا
    11:34 – 2 Oct 2017
    2 2 Replies 15 15 Retweets 36 36 likes
    Twitter Ads information and privacy
    Further reports suggested that the incident took place near T-3 Pumping Station in the province of Homs where the Syrian Arab Army and Hezbollah had recently repelled a large ISIS advance.

    If confirmed, these airstrikes could be described as a direct assistance to the ongoing ISIS advance against pro-government forces in central Syria..’

    Just how much evidence do people need, to understand the War Criminal US and it’s ‘Coalition’ cronies are ASSISTING ISIS, not fighting them?
    The hundreds of thousands of deaths, huge infrastructure damage, hundreds of thousands of refugees have all been deliberately caused by the West and it’s cronies in order to achive ‘Regime Change’ and Balkanisation of the area.
    And the MSM deliberate lies makes them complicit in War Crimes, Crimes Against Peace and Crimes Against Humanity.

    By the way, I’m sure this meeting about the Media will be a fantastic meeting; book fast, if you haven’t already:
    Eventbrite – FROME STOP WAR presents MEDIA ON TRIAL with JOHN PILGER – Thursday, October 19, 2017 at Bloomsbury Central Baptist Church, London, England.

  • KingofWelshNoir

    Las Vegas

    Look I know the official narrative-huggers will get really annoyed and say it’s just nervous laughter…I know, I know…but for my like-minded brothers down here in the basement of the 9/11 thread, I bring this to your attention.

    An interview with the brother of the alleged shooter. He seems to be struggling not to laugh.

    Yeah, I know, I know, it’s just nervous laughter, it’s just nervous laughter. Perfectly understandable in a guy who just lost a brother who shot 50 people.

    The comments under the video are well worth a read.

    There’s an interesting slip of the tongue right at the front followed by a strange need to insist that his brother did it.

    ‘Find out who GAVE— er…who he bought the machine guns from…he bought the machine guns and he did this…it was him who did this, there’s no doubt about it because it was…him etc.

    He’s also wearing a performing arts tee shirt 🙂

    • KingofWelshNoir

      I’ve got a friend in the ‘construction industry’ and I asked him the same question. He answered, ‘How the Hell would I know? I’m a builder.’

      • Clark


        Dirt Boy Demolition
        Marines Conduct Urban Demolition Operations
        U.S. Army Soldiers with Battle Group Poland conduct live-fire demolition training…
        511th Dive Detachment Demolition Exercise
        Defense Secretary Ash Carter observes live demolition demonstrations…

        Original assertion from KoWN:

        “Personally, I don’t believe the military would even have teams trained in controlled demolition, why would they?”

        • KingofWelshNoir

          For God’s sake Clark, no one doubts that the military blow stuff up – i.e. uncontrolled demolitions – the question was whether they have the capability to perform controlled demolitions. You posted a load of links, I tried the first one and it was just a video of the army blowing buildings up. I already know they do that. Rather than make me trawl through the others, can you link to a video of the army performing a controlled demolition?

          And don’t selectively quote me in future. The full quote was:

          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.

          The last line make me look eminently reasonable, I’d say, why leave it out?
          And for the record, I still doubt the military have this capability, but again, I’m happy to be corrected.

          • Clark

            I just corrected you. You don’t seem very happy about it.

            Your argument relies upon the precise definition of “controlled”, but reality is not made of words. Definitions are dependent upon context. For instance, legislation requires that products and commercial services conform to the description they are marketed under, and thus the words used in product descriptions are defined quite narrowly by relevant laws.

            “Controlled demolition” is a commercial service; a company undertakes not only to destroy something, but to control the extent of the destruction. In this sense, none of the building collapses on 9/11 can be described as “controlled demolitions” since they all severely damaged other buildings. The demolition industry uses the term one way, 9/11 demolition theorists use it another.

            How controlled was the collapse of Building 7? NIST says “not at all”, 9/11 demolition theorists say “precisely”. I say there are possibilities between these two extremes.

            You’re an author. I shouldn’t have to lecture you on the relationship between language and reality.

          • Clark

            Actually, it seems to me that most Truther “arguments” are actually mere word-games. The interminable repetition of “jet fuel can’t melt steel”, “the Twin Towers were designed to withstand aircraft impact”, “the official conspiracy theory”, “no steel framed building ever before…”, “collapsed into its own footprint”, “an Arab in a cave couldn’t…”, “pull it”, “magic Arab theory”, “pools of molten steel” etc. etc. etc. – these are sound-bites, rhetorical devices intended to convince, not attempts to hone descriptions until they match facts.

            By and large, Truthers seem uninterested in truth; they just want to win.

          • Clark

            Not just Truthers; it’s extremely common human behaviour, and most prolific sources are the political, advertising and PR spheres.

            Something to rise above, I’d say.

    • John Goss

      My original comment questioned whether Craig’s construction industry friend gave him accurate information. KoWN addressed that. Clark did not.

      He went rambling off on diversions which might have some kind of interest elsewhere on the thread but in no way qualify or quantify whether or not Craig’s assertion that it would take “nine months, 80 men, and 12 miles of cabling” was right, or wrong. That was my question and that was the purpose of my giving the link, not to be dragged off into a discursory sidetrack.

      • Clark

        Insults, insults – mods, please leave them because they are illustrative of the conspiracy theorists’ modus operandi of attempting to drive all challenge from the threads.

          • Clark

            “Rambling”, “diversions”, “might have some kind of interest”, “discursory sidetrack” –

            Insults, see? But what the hell? When KoWN argues that all demolitions require weeks of preparation, you agree with him. When Craig says the same, you argue against him. You seem not to care about consistency; you just argue whichever way seems to support your immediate point. How can anyone respect that?

          • John Goss

            They were not insults. They were descriptions of what you do. It’s like saying “I don’t want to talk about that, I want to talk about this instead.” In response to my comment on October 7, 2017 at 09:04 you’ve made about six or seven responses without a single one addressing whether a building can be rigged for demolition in a few weeks rather than nine months, or whether any cabling was necessary. You are not stupid Clark. I should not have to spell out what you must know you are doing.

          • Clark

            So you’re imputing the motives of sidetracking and diversion.

            Mods, please don’t delete John’s comment despite it breaking the rules.

            OK John, why would I be doing that?

          • John Goss

            You don’t want to talk about whether or not Craig was wrongly informed by his friend in the construction industry and you have shown it by your perpetual waffle. There is no imputation of sidetracking. It’s what you do. All the time. I am not the first to notice.

          • Clark

            I couldn’t be bothered to answer because nine months or nine weeks makes no odds; both are far too long to be plausible.

            I couldn’t be bothered to write out the more complex point either, which is this: Typical controlled demolitions will be arranged to require the minimum expense. Placing and wiring charges and buying explosives all incur expense – listen to demolition engineer Danny Jowenko, who said that you use the building’s own weight to help bring it down.

            However, the Truther proposal is that the Twin Towers were theatrically demolished, the use of explosives to imitate progressive collapse; the ejections of dirty air are said to be caused by charges exploding. That would have required charges on every floor below the damaged zones, in every gap between every perimeter column. That’s about (100 + 90) x 4 x 236 = about 180 thousand charges, and that’s just the visible ones at the perimeter! Placing and wiring that lot could well take nine months!

            So maybe Craig and his friend had been drinking, exaggerated, and happened to come up with a plausible figure by accident. I don’t know; I can’t speak for Craig.

          • Clark

            Oops, sorry, I got an excess factor of four in there; maybe only 45,000 charges would be needed for the visible effects.

            We’ve watched videos of known controlled demolitions. They use dozens of visible charges rather than thousands.

          • Clark

            John, you accuse me of waffle and sidetracking, but from the reality viewpoint, all this talk of demolition is the biggest sidetrack of all. 9/11 is about foreign policy, and foreign policy has fuck all to do with demolition, especially two “demolitions” that exist only in conspiracy theorists’ fantasies.

            What happened on 9/11 is still happening. The US/UK/Israeli alliance is still manipulating “Islamic” extremists, still supporting the spread of Saudi indoctrination, still supplying industrial quantities of weapons to Jihadis, and Western civilians are still suffering the blowback from this policy. Nothing has changed, despite both 9/11 and 7/7.

          • Clark

            The Bush administration tried to use 9/11 to justify the devastation of Iraq, but it didn’t gain enough traction and they had to invent mythical weapons of mass destruction instead. But since then Libya has been destroyed and Syria remains under attack. 9/11 wasn’t even mentioned as a justification for either, but Jihadis were infiltrated into Libya to provide a pretext for the no fly zone, and Jihadis are actually being used to attack Syria.

            Do you not see? Collapsing tower blocks are an immense distraction from the crucial point, which is the use of Saudi ideology to raise proxy forces for neocon objectives.

    • Paul Barbara

      @ John Goss October 7, 2017 at 22:38
      There is considerable controversy over Rebecca Roth. A lot of her points seem very likely to be correct, but she seems to have various aliases and is very short on giving information which could allow verification of her claims of being a flight attendant, unfortunately.

  • KingofWelshNoir

    Clark : ‘I just corrected you. You don’t seem very happy about it.’

    Er…no, you didn’t correct me. To correct me you would have needed to provide a link in support of your contention that the military have the capability to perform controlled demolitions. Instead you have twice now provided links to examples of them doing uncontrolled demolitions, i.e blowing things up. There can’t be many people alive on the planet who are unaware that they blow things up.

    Since you have repeatedly failed to provide this much sought after link, I think we can infer that you can’t find one because it doesn’t exist.

    Personally, I can’t see any scenario where the army would need to do a controlled demolition.

    But, once again, I could be wrong and am happy to be corrected.

    • Clark

      This is so disappointing; can you not rise above binary meanings and their associated word games?

      Of course the military do not provide the commercial service called controlled demolition. You therefore assume that military demolition is entirely uncontrolled. You can see no use for such skill within the military, so presumably it has never been of military advantage to destroy an enemy command post while preserving an adjacent fuel reserve for their own use, or a hundred other scenarios you could think of if you tried.

      You are proving Kempe right; discussion with conspiracy theorists is futile.

      • Clark

        Your preconceived conclusion dictates your entire argument. You began months ago with “if Building 7 was demolished, it is inconceivable that the Twin Towers were not”. Therefore military explosives specialists must act like the Gumby Theatre.

  • Clark

    Such shallow, shallow reasoning. “Just asking questions”.

    A fire-fighter is recorded on video saying “move back, that building [WTC7] is about to blow up”. Therefore WTC7 was “blown up” (I shall leave aside the purported complete dissimilarity between “blowing stuff up” and “controlled demolition”, so important to another strand of the same argument. Who cares, so long as “we” garner recruits?). Therefore the Twin Towers were subject to “controlled demolition” too. Therefore all three buildings were wired with explosives over the preceding weeks. QED?

    And at this point you must stop “just asking questions”, lest the following be asked…

    Where did the fire-fighters stand in this matter? Were they party to this proposed controlled demolition conspiracy, or not? Did they want WTC7 brought down so they could search for their colleagues in the debris of WTC1 and WTC2 (as their testimony indicates), or not? So if they knew WTC7 had been pre-wired in the preceding weeks, why did they wait until 17:20 before detonating the explosives? Why did their colleagues venture into the pre-wired WTC1 and WTC2 in the first place? Can these fire-fighters be brave enough to enter a towering inferno, but too cowardly to speak out about the premeditated murder of hundreds of their colleagues for the rest of their lives? Something in such arguments clearly does not add up…

    Conspirology seems overly reductionist. Conspiracy theorists break the entire scenario into little pieces, and then think up arguments that seem plausible within each piece despite standing no chance of integrating into an overall, holistic understanding of the entire event.

    Oh sorry; obviously, the existence of the CIA explains everything, including my use of the term “conspiracy theorists” to describe those who refuse to look beyond the end of their own noses.

    • KingofWelshNoir

      Now you are being silly. No one thinks the firefighters wired the building. They were just told to move the people back because the building was about to be blown up.

      My original question to Kempe was simple. When the firemen said the building was about to blow up, what did they mean if they didn’t mean the building was about to blow up?

      You can answer it, if you like.

      • Clark

        Actually, Alex Jones (and presumably many of his duped audience) think the fire-fighters were party to a controlled demolition conspiracy, and has created considerable anger by blurting to that effect through his megaphone on successive anniversaries of 9/11 outside the firehouse nearest to Ground Zero. Local commenter Lysias has opined similarly, I seem to remember (apologies to Lysias if I got that wrong).

        If that fire-fighter really believed that WTC7 was about to be “blown up”, rather than merely indulging in hyperbole, an emergency demolition provides the most likely explanation, does it not? A fire-fighter said in an interview that one was being considered, Kerry seemed to think it might have been one, and Silverstein was apparently trying to arrange one…

        • KingofWelshNoir

          Fine, except I don’t believe an emergency demolition is remotely possible. But the reasons for that have been fully expounded by others earlier in this thread.

          As for Silverstein, I’m convinced his ‘pull it’ remark was a deliberate trap for the troofers. i.e it was wired for demolition and he knew it, but the idea that he would have such a conversation with the fire chief on the day is ludicrous so anyone who quotes it is saying something ludicrous and thus discrediting the hypothesis that it was wired.

          Same happened on July 7. Netanyahu who was in London on the day gave an interview to a Jerusalem newspaper saying he had been warned by Scotland Yard that morning not to travel to his meeting on the Tube. Shortly afterwards, the article disappeared from the Internet, but not before the Troofers had got hold of it and started claiming Netanyahu had foreknowledge. But, again, the idea that he would travel anywhere on the Tube or that Scotland Yard would warn only him is nonsense, so anyone who suggested he had foreknowledge is made to look a fool.

          • Clark

            Oh, so it’s possible to blow something up in seconds, and possible to demolish something carefully over weeks or months, but it’s completely impossible to trade accuracy for time. Why is that?

            It couldn’t be possible that you’ve chosen your “facts” to support your conclusion, of course; people never do that. The scientific method and legal process could both be disposed of and nothing would change.

            More illogic. What Netanyahu said suggested that he didn’t have foreknowledge until he received it from Scotland Yard. Actually, something very important emerged from 7/7 but got buried under an avalanche of conspirology; the “Covenant of Security” between the secret services and violent Islamists, wherein Islamists were given safe haven in the UK so long as all their atrocities were committed overseas. All these years at Craig’s blog and you seemingly haven’t recognised the Devil’s pact between the neocon alliance and “Islamic” extremism. Instead you indulge in conspirology which helps to discredit the fact that 9/11 and 7/7 were two of the most serious examples of blowback.

          • Paul Barbara

            @ KingofWelshNoir October 8, 2017 at 20:01
            Good point about Netanyahu (hadn’t occurred to me), but I don’t agree re ‘Lucky Larry’.

          • KingofWelshNoir

            Clark : ‘More illogic. What Netanyahu said suggested that he didn’t have foreknowledge until he received it from Scotland Yard.’

            Which means you just don’t understand the point. It would imply he didn’t have foreknowledge if it were true, but it is absurd to suggest Scotland Yard discovered the 7/7 plot and decided on the morning to warn Netanyahu and no one else. Therefore it is a lie. Now why would he contrive such a lie?

          • KingofWelshNoir

            Paul : but I don’t agree re ‘Lucky Larry’.

            How do you interpret it, then? People assume it was an accidental slip up, mentioning the decision to ‘pull it’, but the point is, the conversation couldn’t have taken place. Fire chiefs don’t ring up the building owner to discuss what to do, and nor do they arrange impromptu demolitions. So Silverstein is clearly lying, which suggests to me that anything he says in that interview is deliberate, and the accidental admissions are not accidents at all.

          • Paul Barbara

            @ KingofWelshNoir October 9, 2017 at 08:20
            Sure ‘Lucky Larry’ was lying; Firemen don’t ‘do’ controlled demolitions. But ‘LL’ knew that WTC 7 was pre-rigged with explosives, as he also knew the WTC 1 & 2 were. He also would have known that the demolition of WTC 7 had begun BEFORE either 1 or 2 collapsed (Barry Jennings’ {RIP} testimony).
            I believe it must have been a ‘slip of the tongue’. But irrespective of whatever he said, evidence will eventually show (perhaps Dr. J Leroy Hulsey’s WTC 7 Evaluation has already done it) that WTC 7 was brought down with controlled demolition.

          • Clark

            KoWN, I am not a mind reader, so I make no claim as to why Netanyahu or anyone else said one thing or another. Unlike you, I do not assume it was a lie contrived to manipulate opinion. The world is a complex place and there are infinite possibilities. For instance, it is possible that Netanyahu had enquired of Scotland Yard about travel arrangements, and had been advised to avoid the Tube for a completely unrelated reason of which we are unaware. Or it is possible that Netanyahu simply made a mistake; people do that sometimes, though they can usually produce a rationalisation for it later.

  • Clark

    If you want to stop what’s happening in Syria and prevent another Libya, you should be calling out loud and clear that US/UK/Israeli exploitation of “Islamic” extremists led directly to both 9/11 and 7/7. Pretending that “Islamic” extremism doesn’t exist is counter productive, because such extremists are routinely used by “our” side as proxy forces. The propaganda, the establishment lie, is that Islamists are the enemy. They’re not; they’re only described as terrorists when they hit a target that outrages the public and therefore need to be disowned. When they attack “official enemies” such as Syria, they’re described as “moderate rebels” or whatever. Soon after they were infiltrated into Benghazi, the SAS blew up the local Libyan ammo store to give them a free hand. Gaddafi was forced to move to crush them, and suddenly NATO imposed a no fly zone “to prevent a massacre”. Don’t you get it yet?

    • Clark

      We all know that the Mujahideen were supported by the US as proxy forces against the USSR in Afghanistan; look a bit more closely at that name; doesn’t it remind you of Jihad?

      “Mujahideen (Arabic: مجاهدين‎‎ mujāhidīn) is the plural form of mujahid (Arabic: مجاهد‎‎), the term for one engaged in Jihad (literally, “striving” or “struggling,” especially with a praiseworthy aim). Its widespread use in English began with reference to the guerrilla-type military outfits led by the Islamist Afghan warriors in the Soviet–Afghan War, and now extends to other jihadist outfits in various countries”

      It’s a disgusting policy, exploiting religious indoctrination to fight wars to which the West would not commit its own troops. But you know, these day you just can’t raise proper infantry in the West. But don’t worry; the corporate media won’t rock the boat, and conspiracy theorists will muddy the waters for those who start to suspect.

  • Node


    When I asked you a few months ago to suggest a credible schedule for Silverstein’s impromptu demolition of WTC7, you proposed 1.5 – 2 hours to assemble a team of military explosives experts at the building.

    Let’s not question how Larry was able to instantly order such a service – for your scenario to be remotely possible, a specialist team of military demolition experts (20 – 50 people?) would have to have been on standby alert in New York on the 9th September 2001 with trucks already loaded with the tons of explosives, detonators and other necessary equipment required to demolish a huge steel-framed building.

    Do you agree?

    • Clark

      The link that said Silverstein was trying to arrange a fast demolition is somewhere pages back. It didn’t say he was successful, and I doubt he would have been because commercial controlled demolition does take weeks of preparation, and commercial companies would not undertake the demolition of a burning building.

      But Silverstein was not alone in wanting that building down. Some of the fire-fighters’ testimonies state that some fire-fighters were disregarding the exclusion zone around WTC7 to continue the search for their colleagues; they were rebelling against the order to evacuate. Maybe a deal was made and a military team were sent in by higher authority; “OK, you get out of the way and we’ll get it taken down fast so you can continue the search”. That could explain the fire-fighters being among the few to know.

      Tonnes of explosives? WTC7 was a pigs ear of a building with a massive cavity at the bottom containing an older transformer substation. That cavity was very nearly as high as the distance of free-fall measured by Chandler. The building’s core didn’t go down to the foundations; it was supported by a cantilever truss arrangement above the cavity. It doesn’t take a genius to work out that you might be able to bring it down quite cleanly by collapsing that cantilever system; if the core drops, the horizontal connections will pull downwards and inwards upon the perimeter. Worth a try under the circumstances? Secret operation – so use thermite to keep the noise down. That could explain the strangely eroded samples of steel, and maybe some of the analysis of the dust.

      Ties up a lot of loose ends, doesn’t it?

      • Node

        So you agree with everything I said except the weight of equipment required? You agree that a response time of under 2 hours would require that the specialist military demolition team were already in New York, assembled, equipped, and ready to go at a moment’s notice?

      • Clark

        The Alaskan study may cast some light on this. If it shows that failure of the cantilever truss arrangement or its supports most likely initiated the sort of collapse recorded, I’ll consider my theory as more than utterly speculative. But surely it is already more likely than pre-rigged demolition? I mean, if the Twin Towers were demolition expertly disguised as progressive collapse, why deliberately include such a give-away as WTC7’s spectacular demise? Why bother at all? If you want to destroy records, surely fire would be more thorough than collapse?

      • Clark

        From the fall of WTC1 until the fall of WTC7 was around seven hours. Everything and everyone didn’t have to arrive at once; work could have started with the earliest arrivals and proceeded as the team was added to. And the military would have been on high alert even earlier, from the first aircraft impact.

        So I think it’s feasible, but marginal. But everything about WTC7’s collapse is dead weird, so we’re looking at a marginal explanation no matter what.

        • Node

          And the military would have been on high alert even earlier, from the first aircraft impact.

          We’re not talking about the military in general. We’re talking about a team of very specialist military demolition experts and that they must have been present and prepared in New York City on 911 if your scenario is correct. Please address this point.

          The nearest military base is more than 50 miles away. Even if the entire team was on standby there, fully equipped for every eventuality including bringing down a huge steel-framed building, there wasn’t time for them to reach the World Trade Centre within your time frame (which unrealistically assumes that Silverstein conceived and acted upon his demolition plan immediately WTC2 fell, before any fire damage was apparent).

          • Clark

            Do you not expect there to be overlap between civilian demolition experts and military explosive experts? I expect there’ are many; a stint in the military would be good experience for demolition company employees. What’s his name, founder of the company Controlled Demolition was on the scene, wasn’t he? Couldn’t he have directed placing of charges? Could there have been off-duty or retired demolition or explosives experts resident in New York?

            You’re displaying conspiracy theorists’ thinking again; everything you argue is aligned to your predefined conclusion, like iron filings aligning in a magnetic field.

        • Clark

          To me, seven hours seems long enough to perform a fast-and-dirty felling of WTC7. And the fall of WTC7 was dirty; it wrote off one other building and necessitated multi-million dollar repairs to another. Whatever caused the fall of WTC7, it was not a controlled demolition in the normal sense; I think WTC7 was over twice as high as the record-holding known controlled demolition.

          Actually, the commercial service called controlled demolition can be ruled out. It is impossible to guarantee control of the demolition of a building which is on fire.

          But you seem to be missing my greater point. Truthers pin great hope upon proving the collapse of WTC7 to have been a “controlled demolition”, but even if such could be proved, it implies nothing about the collapses of the Twin Towers.

  • KingofWelshNoir

    A Conspiracy Theorist and an Official Narrative Hugger walk into a bar.

    On the TV there is some footage of firemen moving people back from a building, saying it is about to blow up. There is an explosion and the building collapses at freefall speed into its own footprint.

    The Conspiracy Theorist turns to the Official Narrative Hugger and says, ‘What do you make of that?’

    The Official Narrative Hugger asks, ‘Was that on 9/11?’
    The Conspiracy Theorist says ’No.’
    ‘Oh,’ says the Official Narrative Hugger, ‘In that case it was a controlled demolition.’

  • Dave

    I find the Parsons Green and Las Vegas false flags very interesting, because they are so obviously fake, its must have been done deliberately to bring all the false flags into doubt. Maybe not, maybe just the perpetrators arrogance and contempt for the public, but then again, there was the impressive two-page 9/11 truth article in the Daily Mail! Something’s going on!!!

    • glenn_nl

      Probably I shouldn’t, but… do you have any evidence that the recent killings at Las Vegas were a “false flag” operation? Nobody dead, all crisis actors, you reckon? Perhaps your thinking is that in a crazed place like the US, where guns are in abundance and mental healthcare very thin on the ground, having some nut go on a killing spree every now and then is too ridiculous to even contemplate.

      • Node


        Clark sometimes listens to you. Would you care to offer an opinion on the credibility of his theory that when Larry Silverstein saw the extent of the damage to WTC7 caused by the collapse of the Twin Towers, he called in a team of military specialists who secretly demolished it within a few hours?

        • Clark

          That’s not my theory. I have thought for a long time that it was possible that an emergency demolition was performed on WTC7, and Danny Jowenko said something rather similar. Then I read the testimony that some fire-fighters were unhappy to respect the exclusion zone around WTC7, which could provide a motive. Even more recently I stumbled onto a link which said that Silverstein was frantically making telephone calls trying to arrange WTC7’s demolition.

          I don’t claim to know what happened. I try to keep an open mind. You obviously wish to discredit this possibility. That this is what I would expect of conspiracy theorists does not necessarily imply that you are one.

          • Node

            That this is what I would expect of conspiracy theorists does not necessarily imply that you are one.

            You’ve used variations of the phrase “conspiracy theory” 16 times in 36 posts on this page, yet when you are asked what you mean by it, you claim to use it in a specialised sense which does not conform to the usual definition. If this concept is so central to your understanding of 911, perhaps you should clearly define what you DO mean by it, or use a different phrase, or stop complaining that nobody understands you.

          • Clark

            No, I use “conspiracy theorist” (or sometimes “conspirology”) as in common parlance:


            Conspiracy theorists use it differently, to mean a theory involving a conspiracy, because they are apparently in denial of their own mode of thinking.

            Yes, I realise that this is a strange kink of language, but language is like that sometimes. That isn’t my fault; I have to work with what I’ve got. I have asked for suggestions for alternative terms, but the only suggestion was “fearless free-thinkers who see through the propaganda” or some such self-serving compliment.

            The concept is not important to my understanding of 9/11 or any other such event. However, it is central to understanding most of the arguments found on this thread.

          • Clark

            I’m also aware that the term is misused to discredit politically unpopular information, and of claims that the CIA deliberately developed this angle, as is to be expected. Certainly the aforementioned language kink aids such misuse but again, there’s nothing I can do about that except ask for an appropriate alternative term.

          • Node

            No, I use “conspiracy theorist” (or sometimes “conspirology”) [16 times in 36 posts] as in common parlance:

            Ah, I thought you were being subtle but you’re just being repetitive. Why not change the insult then, just to give us some variety. “Tin foil hatter” is very popular amongst your type.

          • Clark

            I don’t use “tin foil hatter” etc. because it is not my intention to insult; it is my intention to refer to a particular mode of thought and an associated group dynamic on threads such as this.

            One example of the group dynamic is that Exexpat accused me of complicity in mass murder and indulged in anti-Semitism, but because you recognised in him a fellow conspiracy theorist, you asked me to apologise to him. Just above we see something similar from Macky supporting Paul Barbara. In both cases, anti-Semitism was excused by conspiracy theorists. In other environments with differing false consensus, Islamophobia is considered acceptable. Likewise, crimes of different groups are attributed elsewhere; the type of conspiracy theorists on this thread completely deny the existence of violent “Islamic” extremism. An overlapping group of conspiracy theorists always misattribute US gun massacres as government false-flag operations. Likewise, on an opposing side, Israel never does anything wrong; the massacres in Gaza are always considered to be “necessary responses to terrorism”.

          • Node

            One example of the group dynamic is that Exexpat accused me of complicity in mass murder and indulged in anti-Semitism, but because you recognised in him a fellow conspiracy theorist, you asked me to apologise to him.

            No. I said you owed him an apology because you were aggressive, rude and sarcastic to him when he was bending over backwards to have a sincere and friendly dialogue with you. I’ve explained this several times but you prefer to keep repeating a false narrative which associates me with anti-Semitism.

            Regards your use of “conspiracy theorist”, you could consistently substitute the term “tin foil hatter” without losing your intended meaning. Try it.

          • Clark

            Since when has repeatedly accusing your debating partner of complicity in mass murder been “bending over backwards to have a sincere and friendly dialogue”? It doesn’t matter how politely he phrased it. I can see why I’m not getting your respect; presumably I should be calling you a shill for the evil Saudi indoctrination project.

            Maybe you didn’t notice the bit about Exexpat’s remark “as fake as Habba’s foreskin”, but that’s the type of person you were sticking up for. It’s not me associating you with anti-Semitism; you did that all by yourself.

            I’m sorry you feel insulted by the term “conspiracy theorist”. I noticed the tendency to conspirology years ago, and deliberately countered it with logic. All the human attributes are necessary; it’s a matter of balancing them against each other.

          • Node

            I’m sorry you feel insulted by the term “conspiracy theorist”

            I don’t, but you are trying to.

            It’s not me associating you with anti-Semitism; you did that all by yourself.

            I didn’t, but you just did it again.

            I think I’ll conclude this dialogue now. You have diverted it from being an examination of your untenable ‘spontaneous demolition’ theory to antisemitism smears against me. If I question your character for doing that, you’ll use your influence with the MODS to have it deleted as ad hominem. Well done, you win.

          • Clark

            You have imputed motive to me at least twice in the above comment.

            Mods, please do not delete Node’s comment above.

            Node, that’s all I can do; deletion or otherwise is not in my hands, I’m glad to say.

          • Clark

            And Node, “winning” was not my conscious objective, though natural human competitiveness is always acting subconsciously, of course. My conscious objective is to get you to recognise something about yourself. But belief systems have something like an immune system, which negates or transforms concepts which would call the beliefs into question. I know this first-hand from my experience of overcoming religious indoctrination.

            As for fast-and-dirty demolition, it seems self evident to me that accuracy can be traded against preparation time.

      • Geordie Bordie

        “Perhaps your thinking is that in a crazed place like the US, where guns are in abundance and mental healthcare very thin on the ground, having some nut go on a killing spree every now and then is too ridiculous to even contemplate.”

        That’s what you’d think, isn’t it.

        But I’m not sure Morse would be happy with the in your face obvious explanation.


        He’d be thinking that if such events are so readily taken at face value then a smart killer might be tempted to hide his crime in amongst the serial killer and shooting spree guys.

        • glenn_uk

          If Morse had found some nut-job with a smoking gun in his hand, and a victim dead of gunshot wounds next to him, I think Morse would at least entertain the idea that said nut-job was responsible. Wouldn’t you? Of course not! “False-flag” is the first thing Morse would be saying, right?

          • Geordie Bordie

            Thing is Glenn, your version wouldn’t make for a very good episode, would it!


            I’m sure Morse would look deeply at all aspects of the crime and come up with a solution that you hadn’t thought of.

            Wouldn’t he.

            And it would be the last thing you ever thought of.

            Like it wouldn’t be the obvious one.

            That’s probably why people watch it.

          • Paul Barbara

            @ glenn_uk October 9, 2017 at 17:20
            To paraphrase slightly: ‘If US Police had found some nut-job with a smoking gun in his hand, four bullet wounds in his head and a victim dead of gunshot wounds next to him, I think the US Police would at least entertain the idea that said nut-job was responsible for murder then suicide. Wouldn’t you?
            Of course not! “False-flag” is the first thing any decent ‘conspiracy theorist’ worth their salt would be saying.
            Especially when we have evidence of Clinton putting out a contract on said ‘nut-job’, who had threatened to expose some of Clinton’s many crimes. The other victim? It was his buddy, also ‘in the know’ about Clinton’s crimes.

          • Node

            What would Louie Knight say?

            “Someone gave him a squirty flower filled with cobra venom. It’s an old trick.”

          • John Goss

            “Morse? Puh. What would Louie Knight say?”

            Thanks Node. That is exactly what he would say. I bet that KoWN, who is notoriously lacking in humour, might be able to muster up an inward chuckle over that. 🙂

        • Clark

          But the “damn gubmint tryin to take our guns” conspiracy theorists claim this about every mass shooting in the US!

          • Geordie Bordie

            That’s because every time there’s an event of this nature the Dems do demand tougher and tougher gun control.

            The two things are connected, you see.

          • Geordie Bordie

            That’s a bit negative and stereotypical, Clark.

            I’m surprised at you.

            Despite media propaganda against them, real American conservatives are lovely people:


            Independent minded, do their own thing. As close to an anarchist as it’s possible to get.

          • Clark

            There’s good and bad in all groups. I’m glad there’s gun control where I live because people go mad with anger sometimes.

          • Geordie Bordie

            Conservative to them means self-reliance.

            They hate govt.


            They’re sell-reliant.

            They don’t need govt.

            Just family and friends.

            What else.

          • Clark

            There’s good and bad in all groups, and mostly the good greatly outweighs the bad. But it’s sensible to limit how bad things can get, and restricting automatic weapons and small concealable weapons seems reasonable.

            Thanks for widening the conversation. Necessary human suspicion is what drives conspirology, too. But this thread illustrates how a certain dynamic causes it to become destructive. Masses of relevant information about 9/11 is never considered, because a small minority manage to take control of threads like this.

          • glenn_uk

            Geordie: What particular tougher gun control measures from the Dems were you thinking of?

            See, every Dem president has been about to initiate a gun-grab since Carter. Only not one of them has done anything of the kind. The only gun-grab in living memory was when Dubbya got the mercenary filth known as Blackwater to take the guns from the citizens of New Orleans after Katrina. The only measure Obama took regarding guns was to loosen restrictions on their being taken to national parks.

            So – propaganda from the far-reicht aside – what might you be referring to?

          • Geordie Bordie

            I’m referring to this:

            “That’s because every time there’s an event of this nature the Dems do demand tougher and tougher gun control.

            The two things are connected, you see.”

            which is what I said above.

            They demand!!

            I didn’t say they succeeded, other than in whittling down the constitution here and there.

            So, more shooting sprees needed to get them to where they want to be.

            They’re bureaucrats, husbands of humanity.

            Some people don’t want to be managed.

            I mean, perhaps even you’ve noticed that the current management is a bit pisspoor crap.

            Rednecks are the future, is what I’d say.

            And Rednecks and Russians, came to rule the whole wide world.

            You see.

            Not the outcome you expected.

            You always gotta look deeper than the superficial narrative.

            That’s what fiction is about.

            To teach you that lesson in a virtual environment.

          • glenn_nl

            OK, so there are no “tougher and tougher gun control” measures or demands. Glad we’ve got that straightened out.

            What about this “whittling down of the constitution” you speak of – would you care to illustrate this assertion with some facts?

            In the meantime, let me get this straight… you reckon the Dems _need_ shooting sprees to “get them where they want to be”. Where that might be, you don’t say – but let’s not worry about details, eh? So Dems like shootings because they make demands (which you haven’t substantiated) yet don’t do anything about it, and…. well, you got a little bit vague around that point to put it mildly.

            Perhaps you could work on your points a little bit, Geordie, before attempting to make them. Having a point in the first place would be a good start.

          • Clark

            Geordie, that’s superb musicianship in that video; thanks.

            I think you should be less dismissive of government. The darker side of human nature abhors a power vacuum; gangs, paramilitaries and corporations will form to fill it, and friends and family (if one has any family; I don’t) will be no match for them. The economies of scale will ensure that the oppressive organisations can always afford a better arsenal, and your friends and family will end up enslaved. Better to have some degree of accountability at the top of the power structures. Yes I know existing arrangements are far from perfect, but it’s like getting old; not so bad when you consider the alternatives.

  • KingofWelshNoir

    Friends, for all those who ask what Louie Knight would say, you will be pleased to know I spoke to him earlier and he issued the following statement.

    To my friends at the basement of the banished 9/11 Truth thread, regarding Las Vegas. Those who react with predictable scorn to the mere suggestion that it might be a false flag have almost certainly not looked beyond the information fed to them by the mainstream media. But we all know the journalists (so-called) who work for the the MSM long ago abandoned any pretence of holding Power to account or interrogating the narrative, instead they simply repeat it irrespective of how much nonsense it contains.

    So truth seekers have to go online where we find a huge army of people dissecting the official story. Many of them, perhaps, are barking mad, but among them are voices of reason pointing out the discrepancies (and there would appear to be quite a few). For example, we find former Navy Seals explaining how there was more than one shooter, we have former CIA agents such as Robert Steele seeming to be of the opinion that it was a drill that was hijacked by MOSSAD etc. The point is, it is very hard to figure out what went on but at least the people on the alternative media are trying and it seems pretty clear that, as usual, all is not what it seems.

    As for the alleged perp’s brother, he is so fishy. Just look at his latest interview:

    You know, when a child goes missing and we cops think the parents (or more usually the father) might have done it, we often arrange a news conference for the parents because they very often give themselves away by talking about the child in the past tense. A normal parent never gives up hope and even years later talks about the missing child in the present tense. Here in this video we have the opposite. The bother keeps talking about his brother in the present tense, and then catches himself such as at 33.51 ‘Steve is a…was…was a etc. I’ve seen a few of these now and I think there is something very strange about him.

    • Clark

      The “predictable scorn” is because we’ve been led on so many wild goose chases before.

      What case does Louie actually have? Some odd facial expressions from someone who we would expect be very distressed, and some rumours that the shooting was by, wait for it, Mossad! Always Mossad! That’s as predictable as our scorn. I can just imagine the judge’s expression as Louie rises to present his case…

  • Dave

    Those responsible for 9/11 and the official narrative are quite capable of much smaller events and the same lack of official scrutiny shows the perpetrators are the same. And as the official narrative ticks all the same implausible boxes the starting position becomes false flag until proven otherwise, whilst retaining an open, rather than tormented, mind about the details, such as why would someone need so many guns when they can only fire one at a time. Number of guns, method and location makes no sense apart from providing a dramatic story line not borne out by the pictures provided and which fails the merest examination. But I’m hopeful this latest one, and Parsons Green, are intended to be so obviously fake to sink the Globalists.

    • Clark

      But conspiracy theorists like you have churned out so much similar tripe that the likes of me can’t even be bothered to look.

        • Clark

          Imputing motive is against moderation rules.

          Mods, please leave the comment as it’s illustrative of what passes as thinking among conspiracy theorists.

          Are you calling me an agent, “Dave”? You did before, but it was deleted.

          • Dave

            You are intelligent as your voluminous sophistry and evasion shows, but to witness 110 storeys of reinforced concrete and steel X2 disintegrate into dust in seconds and say, for so long, its not controlled demolition is soul destroying too.

    • glenn_nl

      …”the starting position becomes false flag until proven otherwise”…

      That’s the problem isn’t it? You lot claim “False Flag” so bloody often, everything from reports of a flat tyre to a bit of house-breaking to a full scale military incursion to hurricanes falls under this category. It starts to get absolutely silly when one realises that with all these FFs going on, nothing is actually happening as a result of all these missions, no whistle-blower says a thing, these security forces manage it so well none of it is ever rumbled (apart from by your brilliant lot, of course), and what’s the actual cover-up? That we have a perfect world really – no crime, no nut-cases, no terrorists, just our own security services perpetrating this crap all the time?

      If you at least were a bit selective about screeching FF at every bit of news, you might retain a bit of credibility. As it is, you’ve made the claim a joke.

        • Clark

          What do you mean by “tag partner”, Dave? I want you to spell it out.

          There are half a dozen conspiracy theorists on this thread who hardly ever challenge a single thing that any other raises. Do they count as “tag partners”, and if not, why not? Sauce for the goose and all that.

          This is the site of Craig Murray, the former British ambassador who exposed the US/UK policy of using false confessions extracted under torture. Jack Straw tried to dismiss Craig’s allegations as conspiracy theory, but Craig was eventually proven to be truthful. I have helped Craig in various ways including with this site for around a decade. You might understand that people like me tend to object when a bunch of actual conspiracy theorists try to commandeer parts of the site for the dissemination of utter bullshit, because it tends to dilute Craig’s message and discredit him by association. I mean, you could be trying to discredit Craig on anyone’s behalf, couldn’t you? The Saudis, Blackwater, Tim Spicer, Alisher Usmanov… Sauce for the goose etc…

  • Paul Barbara

    Well, despite the mass of evidence that the ‘Official Narrative’ of the Las Vegas attack is total BS, the PTB seem to have got the NRA to budge on one issue: ‘NRA endorses curbs on rapid-fire gun devices’:

    Here are some of the evidences countering the ‘Official Narrative’:
    ‘Robert Steele: Las Vegas False Flag? — Treason Most Foul?’:
    ‘Las Vegas shooting hoax by Prof. Emeritus James Fetzer PhD & Aaron Wilson PhD’:
    ‘Vegas union worker blows whistle on “mandatory active shooter training” which was due “Sept. 30” at “12 a.m.”:
    ‘A total of 10 windows were knocked out of Mandalay Bay the night of the shooting, floors 61, 62, 29, 30, and 32?’:
    ‘Rocky Palermo Shot By Gunman on the Ground’:
    ‘Las Vegas shooting eyewitness: There were “four to five” shooters attacking multiple hotels’:

    And then, as well as the MSM playing ball with the PTB and not exposing this info, Youtube steps up it’s censorship:
    ‘YouTube is trying to stop people seeing Las Vegas conspiracy theories’:

    And the near mandatory ‘Drill’ going on at the same or very close to the same time – gee, haven’t I heard of that before?
    Oh, yes – 9/11, 7/7, Breivik, Boston…….ditto evidence of foreknowledge…..

    • glenn_nl

      Put it into context for us, Paul. How often do they hold training for shooting events? Because unless this was the first one ever, drawing conclusions about such training is absolutely meaningless. That holds both here and everywhere else where people get all hysterical at the fact a security exercise was taking place _near_ an incident, at roughly the same time or within a few days.

      You’ll probably find security drill taking place at every airport, city, and mass gathering event, even though nothing newsworthy happens. It only gets the FF’ers all lathered up when they find – shock, OMG! – that one occurred a bit before or after an actual event (for which the training was intended in the first place, given it’s not entirely unexpected!).

  • Paul Barbara

    Do any of the anti-‘Conspiracy Theorists’ believe the MSM present us with the truth?
    If not, then ‘Conspiracy Theorists’ are obviously required to attack the BS we are fed by the MSM.
    ‘”A really efficient totalitarian state would be one in which the all-powerful executive of political bosses and their army of managers control a population of slaves who do not have to be coerced, because they love their servitude. To make them love it is the task assigned, in present-day totalitarian states, to ministries of propaganda, newspaper editors and schoolteachers….” — Aldous Huxley – (1894-1963) Author – Source: forward to Brave New World, 1946 edition’ (quoted from Information Clearing House:

    • Clark

      “Do any of the anti-‘Conspiracy Theorists’ believe the MSM present us with the truth? If not…”

      And there it is again – Binary Thinking; “either this (which is demonstrably false) is true, or my favoured alternative must be true”.

      As if we should fall for a contrived false dichotomy.

      I think that there is a minority of very good journalists – remember that John Pilger, Seymour Hirsh, Robert Parry, Craig Murray etc. were and occasionally still are published in what you dismiss as the MSM. Therefore you should take their writings and invert them to find the Truth, should you not?

      Look, you’ve sent me to sites that claim that the radar stations used for detecting rain, are actually used for controlling the weather. You ask me to believe the most nonsensical things. The main thing I’ve learnt from you is that it’s a waste of time following your links. But you refuse to raise your game, seduced by your own

1 117 118 119 120 121 134

Comments are closed.