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).
“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.”
It still does seem the most popular. People want to know the truth.
Craig is someone I admire, not just because he opposed the government he worked for in not questioning why somebody can be boiled alive without creating a protest, but because he raises important issues on many current affairs and gives intelligent analyses based on his own knowledge of international and national affairs. I am glad this thread is so alive but realise it is detracting, detracting me as well, from commenting on other threads.
It shows just how much people are concerned for those murdered on 9/11. It is a worthy thread and as I write, looking down the recent comments, notice that more are still talking about the destruction of the world trade centre in 2001 than anything else.
– “I […] notice that more are still talking about the destruction of the world trade centre in 2001 than anything else”
Quite. This should have been cleared up years ago. Let’s see if we can do that, eh?
I do not think we are in a position to clear it up. Best we can hope to achieve is a proper investigation.
Oh the entire event needs a proper investigation; international, not US-based, because the US has too much to hide.
But collapse progression can be cleared up because it was all recorded over and over on videos and in photographs, and we know the overall structure of the Twin Towers. None of that can be hidden. Have some optimism!
360 deg, top to toe symmetrical collapse progression can only be initiated by simultaneous removal of outer and core supports .
An aircraft entering one side of the building and bits exiting the other cannot achieve that.
Even miraculous removal of the massive core supports in an instant (there one moment hey presto gone the next) could not initiate a symmetrical collapse.
The reason is the weakened entry face would begin to collapse first and because that would impact to lower level before the undamaged faces a “tilt” in the collapse would be present at the very first moment of collapse. That can never be corrected (evened out) in a “natural” collapse but the effect would become magnified at each level result in the entry side damaged face collapsing significantly quicker than the non damaged and less damaged exit face.
The only possible way to correct a lopsided collapse is the create a “flat” collapse beneath the initial collapse. The initial collapse would never catch up with secondary one until ground level was reached.
Results 1st Scenario the building would collapse sideways. But only if the central core supports are removed simultaneously. If that doesn’t happen the building doesn’t fall.
2nd scenario, all outer and core supports removed simultaneously beneath damaged level, result you get what we all saw.
All the core supports had to be removed in the same instant to achieve the result witnessed. That does not mean all supports had the be destroyed by explosive, just enough of them that would initiate the collapse but the unexploded supports had to be in a symmetrical pattern or a lopsided collapse would ensue.
Hope this helps.
– “360 deg, top to toe symmetrical collapse progression can only be initiated by simultaneous removal of outer and core supports”
No, there’s another way, and it fits better with the observations. Watch the collapse videos. First there’s a lot of confused motion at the interface between the falling and standing sections, stuff thrown out, dust ejected, etc. While this is happening the roof line is descending until it too disappears into the dust. But simultaneously a great front of horizontal ejections through the perimeter emerges from that dust cloud racing downwards – but it is moving slower than free fall because perimeter sections from (what was) the top can be seen to overtake it. This is evidence of an internal collapse – the path of second least resistance, the huge concrete floor slabs with minimum steel, with vulnerable spans between 16 and 22 metre. It doesn’t go sideways because the perimeter contains it, channelling down onto each successive floor slab beneath.
Once you’ve noted that, look at what’s happening above. Great sections of perimeter are falling out of the higher dust cloud; on our relatively tiny screens they look like pieces of mesh, trailing dust, and they’re toppling outward. Well of course they would, because they were only held upright by the floor assemblies, and as we’ve just seen, the internal collapse has just ripped the floor assemblies to bits.
Now turn your attention back to the ejections again as they rush towards ground level. On some views they look perfectly symmetrical, but if you watch from various angles you can see that some parts get ahead. The ejections reach ground level and a huge dust cloud blasts outward; much, much bigger than the dust from the descending front of ejections, eventually spreading much further and welling up as it encounters the obstruction of other buildings. The internal collapse hit bottom and maximum crushing and pulverisation occurred.
But the core remnant still stands for a few seconds more, but you can only see it on some videos because of the enormous dust cloud. The real path of greatest resistance, the core, withstood all the chaos around it, as the floor assemblies were ripped away and the perimeter fell outward. Then it collapses as well, and the collapse of the whole building is finally complete.
– – – – – –
Obviously, you can take exceptions to details, and I have generalised between the two collapses which were similar but not identical. You need to check lots of different videos to see from various angles, and you need to keep pausing and winding back because it all happens so fast, but I think you will find that the major features I’ve described are confirmed. Note that the final upwelling dust cloud from near ground level utterly dwarfs all dust emission that preceded it, including the initial cloud produced immediately following collapse initiation.
Prof, Hulsey’s stuff is up online for ‘Peer Review’.
Strange none of our wannabe architects and engineers has seen fit to make a response – especially as Halsey has requested responses.
Oh, sorry, REAL stuff is beyond your remits.
Ad Hominems expected, and like water off a duck’s back, are ‘par for the course’.
– “Oh, sorry, REAL stuff is beyond your remits”
That IS an ad-hominen, twit. Mods, please leave both 🙂
I’ll let professor Hulsey’s study take its course. I have nothing like the resources of his department, and I still have trust in the academic system, despite Bazant’s folly. Bazant won’t hold his professorship forever. I’m hoping Hulsey’s team will force an admission or at least further disclosure, but it wouldn’t have the effect you expect, Paul.
Just checked out Hulsey’s stuff, it appears the draft report is scheduled for release soon (if it hasn’t already been)
http://www.wtc7evaluation.org/
Not sure it won’t stop the cry of “Conspiracy Theorists!” from some quarters.
The current project is focused on WTC 7 and speaking about Conspiracy Theories I am sue that most if not all that visit here are familiar with the massive BBC prescient cock up of announcing the collapse of WTC 7 before it did, in the live broadcast the Building can still be seen, standing proud, behind the broadcaster whilst she made he announcement.
It is not uncommon for the BBC to “know” stuff before it happens. Dr David Kelly is in the news again because his body was exhumed by the family to prevent someone else exhuming it, well this is the Dr Kelly saga.
But some might not know that the BBC knew Dr Kelly had committed “suicide” before anyone else. Someone during a news blackout at the scene (even the ambulance crew were not permitted leave the scene or contact the HQ by radio) had called the head of news at the BBC and told him painkillers were involved. The packs of painkillers were not found on the body for several hours later by the forensic team.
The BBC’s Andrew Gilligan had been informed Kelly was dead before the body was found.
Good old BBC! Good old Conspiracy Theorists!
I remember the paramedics who attended the scene giving an interview, on BBC Radio 4 I think it was. It was shortly after the event, I forget when, because of course I didn’t realise the significance until later. But they were very clear that they were suspicious and it didn’t look like suicide to them.
But look what happened over the longer term. The government decimated the BBC upper management and had its own placemen installed.
Beware binary thinking. That’s how the powerful want us to think; “if it isn’t A it must be opposite-of-A”, because it leaves a great big gap in between where they can get away with stuff unscrutinised. That gap is where all the action is.
And there really are “conspiracy theorists”; sloppy thinkers, Chinese whisperers, evidence exaggerators and plain old fabricators – sensationalists one and all, and unfortunately they are just as keen on “if it isn’t A it must be opposite-of-A” as the pro-establishment propagandists are.
Not every conspiracy theory is a conspiracy theory, and vice versa; in fact most of them aren’t. Hope that helps!
Exactly. It is why people like Dr David Halpin and Dr Stephen Frost and others lobbied for an inquest. And of course I am well aware of the sterling contribution you have made too Peter.
I live in hope that one day the truth will be revealed. But the Deep State covers these things up. When we are all dead a short statement will be read on whatever form the spying lying media takes then to the effect that Dr David Kelly was murdered and did not commit suicide. People will look at one another and say Dr who?
Yes, and thanks to the diligent efforts of the exaggerators and Chinese whisperers, Dr David Halpin, the trauma surgeon who lead the campaign for an inquest, is now discredited because he buys into a load of false, exaggerated nonsense.
And I’m hopping mad about that.
This is ad hominem and my comment pointing it out was removed.
Unless the attack is on the Chinese whisperers. Not clear. Except he does not buy into false exaggerated nonsense.
To clarify, I am criticising exaggeration and Chinese whispering, which has misled Dr Halpin.
I’m criticising the sort of thing YOU do John. The sort of thing which is so prevalent on this thread. It’s what nearly everyone here is encouraging everyone else here to do, with no regard for truth or accuracy.
It can’t work. It’s highly unlikely to get justice from falsity, and you won’t get peace without justice.
Thanks John.
I think 95% of the truth is already out, very very few people know the precise circumstances of Kelly’s death we do know that the official version is a lie.
Why would Hutton cover up murder? I don’t think he would. He would however cover up the circumstances if Kelly was being detained in a “safe house” for interrogation purposes, possibly with US agents involved and whilst left alone he died from cardiac arrest, when discovered it was too late to resuscitate him.
We know this is a highly plausible scenario from evidence in the public domain.
Now it doesn’t have to be true it only needs for Hutton to believe it. I think another level of false truth was dished out to lower orders that that Kelly committed suicide in the “safe house” because he had been confronted with some horrible truths (not true either).
But in the 911 case the motives of the people doing the cover up are less clear; fear, greed and stupidity are likely contenders but now some of them are looking at very lengthy jail time. Not such a good idea now I’m guessing,
Hutton gave himself away in a letter to the AGO Dominic Grieve, he stated that the reality was that Kelly was either murdered or committed suicide and that natural causes were beyond any reasonable possibility.
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110628103415/http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk/Publications/Documents/Lord%20Hutton%20to%20AGO%201%20December%202010.pdf
The pathologist at the time also suggested this might be true in his Post Mortem report (conclusion 11)
“It is noted that he has a significant degree of coronary artery disease and this may have played some small part in the rapidity of death but not a major part in the cause of death”
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110628103334/http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk/Publications/Documents/Post%20mortem%20report%20by%20Dr%20Hunt%2023%20July%202003.pdf
Yet some years later the pathologist remembers this this in a newspaper interview,
“If he had dropped dead in the canteen and you had seen his coronary arteries, you would have had a very good reason to believe that was the only reason he died.”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1305159/Dr-David-Kelly-pathologist-Nicholas-Hunt-demands-inquest-Ive-hide.html
Journalist Tom Mangold reported Kelly being in a “safe hose”
“Mr Mangold told ITV News: “She [Dr Kelly’s wife] told me he had been under considerable stress, that he was very very angry about what had happened at the committee, that he wasn’t well, that he had been to a safe house, he hadn’t liked that, he wanted to come home.”
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2003/jul/18/iraq.iraq1
So stress induced from a week of Parliament Committee grillings topped with intense media exposure and then interrogation … yep that could do it, that would be more likely than dropping dead in the canteen.
I think Norman Baker came up with the actual method of death albeit at the wrong location and by the wrong culprits
“According to the information I have been given, the murder itself was carried out by a couple of not very well-paid hired hands.
As to the method used, I am told that they gave Dr Kelly an injection in his backside, which perhaps points to the use of succinylcholine, a white crystalline substance that acts as a muscle relaxant.”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-488947/Did-hired-assassins-snatch-weapons-inspector-David-Kelly.html
Yet the pathologist in the same newspaper interview linked above seems to put the dampers on that
“Dr Hunt says: ‘As a forensic pathologist whenever you arrive at a scene you treat it as a homicide until you can be satisfied you’ve excluded that.’ Accordingly, in eight hours of examination he sought any signs of injury to Dr Kelly indicating that he might have been manhandled or drugged by someone else.
‘We look at every millimetre of skin. We’re looking for any needle puncture marks and so forth, any sign of skulduggery – between the fingers, the toes, under the nose, behind the ears, here, there and everywhere.
‘There wasn’t anything. You look through every muscle layer, particularly the neck to see if there’s any evidence that it has been compressed, any signs of trauma on the ribs and any broken bone. There were none at all.’ ”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-488947/Did-hired-assassins-snatch-weapons-inspector-David-Kelly.html
That’s pretty conclusive but it could be Dr Hunt’s memory was failing again
From the Post Mortem Report
“Right Lower Limb
A tiny red lesion of uncertain origin on the inner aspect on the right, mid-thigh measuring less than 0.1 cms in maximum dimension
Minor reddened lesion with light serum crust of uncertain origin over the inner aspect of the right knee, measuring less than 0.1 cms in maximum dimension.
Punctate, reddened lesion, 01 cms across, on the outer aspect of the left, upper thigh.”
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110628103334/http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk/Publications/Documents/Post%20mortem%20report%20by%20Dr%20Hunt%2023%20July%202003.pdf
Now lets forgive getting mixed with left and right and upper and lower the “Punctate” is not labelled “of uncertain origin” and fits in with what Norman Baker was told. It was not investigated further – why? Because the origin was known but not welcome?
But the patologist
Peter, thanks for the National Archive links.
The amusing thing about Jane Standley prematurely reporting the collapse of WTC 7 was what happened at 5.15. There she was having reported the collapse of WTC 7 while it stood on the skyline behind her. Five more minutes and it would have collapsed live behind her. So what happens? The satellite feed was cut at 5.15 and the picture turned to snow. I seem to remember the BBC explaining this as something to do with them not having put a shilling in the meter to pay for the continued coverage, so the feed was cut. As if the credit of the BBC was so bad they couldn’t be trusted.
I also remember some of the US news anchors saying, ‘We are getting reports that Building 7 either is collapsing or has collapsed.’
How can anyone report that a building ‘is collapsing’?
Perhaps the US news anchor was watching the BBC report! 😀
KingofWelshNoir, you seem to have wandered off…
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-123/#comment-704627
John ha ha yes.
It would have been very funny if Jane Standley reported the collapse of the Salomon Brothers building and then as it fell live in the sky behind her she asks, What building is that? and they say ‘WTC Building 7’. So she reports that too. Amazing! Two 47 storey buildings collapse on the same afternoon.
“King”, you continue to evade my questions, while you encourage sensational beliefs. Your respect and integrity diminish in my estimation.
“King”, when you promote influential ideas about matters of great importance, you should be prepared to explain and defend them.
It appears to me that the US are in big trouble, they are about to be exposed as frauds and liars in covering up the facts regarding 911.
Prof J Leroy Hulsey and his team are about to publish a draft report on the collapse of WTC 7 ane the signs are it will say the Official Version of events is bogus.
Forget for a moment about WTC 1 & 2, there will always be some dullard who will point out that just because it has been conclusively proved that WTC was brought down by controlled demolition doesn’t mean the other two were.
OK someone planned and rigged the building with explosives and waited for two aircraft to come along and cause the collapse of the other two buildings and then pressed the tit.
The investigators lied, the real cause was covered up. Murder and terrorism on a massive scale has been covered up by governments of the USA.
There you go, what did I tell you. You’ve just said “if it isn’t A it must be opposite-of-A”, and called me a dullard. So I’ll call YOU a conspirasy theorist.
Peter, I expect certain members of NIST are going to be fucking furious, but with the US government rather than Hulsey’s team. They’re going to be saying “we TOLD you this would happen; you’re wrecking the reputation of the US engineering community”. And the government might even come into line, because the economics of US engineering will be pitched against the economics of US hydrocarbon extraction, and the latter is an inevitably declining sector.
But DON’T assume “controlled demolition”; if there’s one thing we all learn as engineers it is that the real world is ALWAYS more complicated than we think; all we ever manage to do is reduce uncertainty until it is within tolerances. Before proceeding on assumption, check whether known controlled demolitions actually achieve free-fall. And then check Chandler’s graph; it’s a nice smooth curve that actually EXCEEDED free fall briefly. The smoothness is important; it limits what can be got away with by appeal to measurement error.
While I never get involved in why the WTC et al. collapsed, I think that it would not have happened if FBI Director Robert N}mueller had done his job by seeing that his agents stopped the 19 suicide bombers from getting on the planes, leaving it to the CIA to take care of. and which it did almost nothing about.
Little wonder that he is now playing games with Trump having stolen the 2016 presidential election, sending instead associates off the the cooler for a few years for various business crimes.
Mueller is the most overated guy on the planet.
Trowbridge, interesting. Did Mueller know? I thought the scandal was that the CIA illegally withheld their knowledge of the suicide hijackers from the FBI, Richard Blee being central to this.
You were an intelligence analyst, weren’t you? Which department, and what did you have access to? Of course if you can’t say, you can’t say.
I recall that Tenet’s CIA refused to pass on information about what it was doing regarding the hijackers/suicide bombers because the Bureau could not be trusted because of Robert Hanssen’s spying for the Russians, and Mueller was conveniently absent from his job when they occurred while former FBI agent in the know John O’Neill was busily occupied with protecting the WTC where he died.
And my insider knowledge is non-existent, and my drafted experience in the CIC is irrelevant to what I do now.
I learned, for example, of still living U-2 pilot Joe Glenn Hyde, Jr. and DCIs George H. W. Bush and Porter Goss being crucially involved in the setting up JFK for assassination by reading open sources like The Dallas Morning News, The La Grange (Ga.) Morning News et al.
The US government is no more a fountain of good as a fount of truth.
Trowbridge, thank you very much for that, including your professional context.
– “…the Bureau could not be trusted because of Robert Hanssen’s spying for the Russians”
That sounds like an excuse, same as Mueller’s absence.
– “…former FBI agent in the know John O’Neill was busily occupied with protecting the WTC”
In what way? What was he doing? And in what way was he “in the know”?
– “The US government is no more a fountain of good as a fount of truth”
That is the assumption I work on, though I also assume that many individuals within the system are doing their best. That’s why I take notice of the whistle-blowers.
I know very little about the assassination of JFK; better you discuss that with its enthusiasts.
Worse than that the whole basis for waging war on the “axis of evil” because the”calculus of risk” had changed due to 911 was false.
Not only were Saddam’s WMD’s a fiction the so called enhanced threat that he then posed wasn’t real either.
I can understand why some simply don’t posses the intellect to fully absorb the consequences of that revelation, they prefer denial it is far easier to deal with on an emotional level.
Cut the insults, Peter. You’ll see my comments when the moderators eventually haul themselves from their hangovers and release them.
If 9/11 had been so pivotal, illusory WMDs would have been unnecessary. I’m slightly less stupid than you’re giving me credit for.
WMD’s were not just unnecessary they were non existant
I’m saying, if 9/11 had been so pivotal, there would have been no need to fabricate a false case for WMDs.
9/11 was not the false justification for the devastation of Iraq, and even Curveball didn’t work. 9/11 was used as the justification to invade Afghanistan, where rebels against the Saudi monarchy had set up training camps.
WMDs were Blair’s fig leaf!
I should not my breath over Hulsey’s disclosure achieving anything in terms of action from government. If that were to happen somebody might point a finger at the real culprits. And since I suspect the real culprits control the media and information in the public domain conspiracy theorists are likely to get a much more damning label. Enemies of the state perhaps.
Don’t know where the word “hold” went. In the hold-all I guess. 😀
“”It shows just how much people are concerned for those murdered on 9/11. It is a worthy thread and as I write, looking down the recent comments, notice that more are still talking about the destruction of the world trade centre in 2001 than anything else.””
Yes, John.
But I am less pessimistic than you about Hulsey etc.
9/11 scepticism is running along parallel tracks in the US
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?shva=1#trash/15f5b12140d583c0
And the situation in Washington is becoming so chaotic
https://www.thedailybeast.com/report-trumps-business-planned-trump-tower-in-moscow-during-presidential-campaign
that it is conceivable that Trump will do a Sampson, out of pique. (Remember, Trump was publicly sceptical about 9/11, at the time.)
Correction
Samson
http://www.dulwichpicturegallery.org.uk/explore-the-collection/101-150/samson-and-delilah/
Trump tweets, but he could also simply call a national presidential broadcast to the nation and bypass MSM.
Bobm
Did you mean to put a gmail advert in your first link?
On 9/11 Trump said:
– that the Twin Towers were immensely strong, “like a can of soup”. False; they were very lightweight.
– that the aircraft must have been packed with explosives – but the fireball appeared to be fuel, not explosives.
– that he was very good friends with Larry Silverstein – they are both property developers.
– that the US should come down “very, very hard” on whatever country did it.
That’s all consistent with Trump’s usual style; aggressive, and wrong slightly more often than you’d expect from chance alone.
John, that’s a link to Bobm’s Trash folder in his e-mail account. It redirected to an advert because you’re not logged into Bobm’s account.
Reply to Macky about coincidences.
Macky
Sorry this is taken so long, and it’s a bit rushed.
I think the Snopes page which Glenn linked to revealed that the coincidences surrounding the assassination of Lincoln and Kennedy were ultimately rather trivial.
Don’t get me wrong, I love coincidences and I think many many of them are meaningful, pointing to some shaping force in the universe which we don’t know about. It is however notoriously difficult to be certain about them because they get so embellished in the telling.
For example, for long time I used to love the story about the three men Mr Green, Mr Berry and Mr Hill who were all hanged on the same day at Greenberry Hill in London. It’s only recently that I discovered that while it is true that they were all hanged there, it wasn’t called Greenberry Hill until afterwards. Oops.
Or take the old story about grandfather’s clock stopping at the exact moment of his death. Everyone knows that one. How about this: what if grandfather winds his clock every day of his life, but in the last week of his life he gets sick and stops winding the clock. The clock stops. He dies. The doctor is called to certify his death. He writes down a rough time of death. He does that by glancing at the clock, he sees it says 4.13 and writes it down. Later when people clearing out the house, look at the clock they say, ‘My God! Look! It stopped at the exact moment of grandad’s death!’
I’m more interested in are phenomena which people dismiss as coincidence but which suggest design. Such as the plethora of masonic symbols in our townscape and culture. The pyramid, and the Eye of Providence on the dollar bill and on the MI6 badge etc. The obelisks and domes that litter our towns. I understand the obelisk is the penis of Osiris and the dome the womb of some deity, but don’t quote me on that. I used to laugh until I realised the biggest Babylonic penis & womb combo in the world is the Canary Wharf tower and the Millennium Dome, built on the Greenwich meridian. Coincidence? I don’t think so.
And then there is the strange obsession with the number 11. Which I understand is symbolic of the twin pillars of Solomon’s temple or the two dudes Boaz and Jachin, I don’t what they are famous for. The number 11 is clearly a very important number to the Dark Cabal who secretly rule us.
That is why we celebrate the armistice on the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month.
And why 9/11 is dripping with elevens.
For example the very buildings themselves represent the number 11. 911 is the emergency number in the US, and if you add the digits together you get 11. There are a 111 days left in the year after 9/11. They were a 110 floors in the twin towers. That is to say they like multiples of 11 too. That is why Kennedy was assassinated on the 11/22 (and why the roads in Dealey Plaza form the shape of a pyramid).
The first plane to crash into the first tower was American Airlines flight AA11. If A = 1., then that makes 1111.
There are many more.
Oh yes, if you look at aerial photos you will see a dome on one of the towers, and pyramid on another. And in the basement of the Twins there was a mosaic of the Eye of Providence.
Now I would say all this is design. Try a thought experiment. Imagine that the official narrative is true and it was Al Qaeda that brought down the Twins. And imagine further that they were obsessed with the Knights Templar and masonic lore. We would not then be at all surprised to see all these elevens enfolded in the event. We would say they were there by design. But if we say another dark force were responsible and they built the event around the number 11, the same folk would resist that and say it is just a coincidence.
Really? When George Bush sat in the Florida school as the event unfolded, reading a book called My Pet Goat, was that just a book about a goat or was the goat the Satanic deity Baphomet and the whole event a blood sacrifice in which the world sat in the pews of the diabolic church watching the Illuminati doing their stuff?
I know what I think.
Or take Apollo 13. Is it just coincidence that it was the unlucky number 13 that had the problem? That it took off on the 11th of April at 1313 CST. Then had its problem on April 13. When fuel cells 1 and 3 failed?
I don’t think so.
And take a look at this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1e4fYb-zwdE
It shows the astronauts in the command module of Apollo 13 as a miniature tape recorder spins in the air. (I’m sorry I have seen much better footage of this, but can’t find it. You can only see it now on the monitor at the back of Mission Control. ) All self-respecting moon hoax believers think it was Stanley Kubrick that shot the whole thing. And here we have the tape recorder spinning in a reprise of the shot in 2001: A Space Odyssey when the Ape throws the bone into the air and it spins and spins before turning into the space ship orbiting the earth. The tape recorder is playing the 2001 theme tune (Also Sprach Zarathustra), and one of the astronauts says, ‘Isn’t it odd that we are floating in Od – pause – dyssey as the tape plays the theme music from 2001: A Space Odyssey?’
Coincidence? Maybe, but if you ask me it is just the Illuminati (and Kubrick) laughing at us.
Seen the movie Back to the Future? Made in 1985 It’s got 9/11s and pyramids coming out of its ears and it concerns a terrorist attack on the Twin Pines Mall. In Back to the Future II, the sequel, they even superimpose the Twin Pines on the Twin Towers in case you didn’t get it.
I got lots more, but I have to go now and report to my handler.
And what day does Leo’s passport expire in the Matrix? September 11.
Remember: trust no one (especially if they tell you something is ‘just’ a coincidence).
@ KingofWelshNoir October 30, 2017 at 19:33
As well as pyramids, obelisks and designs in city layouts (especially Washington, DC), another frequently occurring symbolism is the owl:
Strata SE1 – (as seen from the Monument, London):
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=pictures+ontario+tower&tbm=isch&tbs=rimg:CYox-A49yyHKIjheb3M1cE0YGc61ovH8yvIO-xFh9imEJzDi0iqsw4ydXs3t1X51SI_1lbKbJgy16utYwnYE3KCmq2ioSCV5vczVwTRgZEcfCInFl9OBeKhIJzrWi8fzK8g4RngqXtpk3fGsqEgn7EWH2KYQnMBFDjaQM7sYWqSoSCeLSKqzDjJ1eEVdayr5N9fO-KhIJze3VfnVIj-URyKsfuneDgV4qEglspsmDLXq61hE5rcB2MWLWYyoSCTCdgTcoKaraEWFPxGhB4rco&tbo=u&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjAjOqWn5nXAhVJK1AKHcW5AfoQ9C8IHw&biw=1600&bih=769&dpr=1#imgrc=zrWi8fzK8g5jgM:
Ontario Tower: (clearly vidible from the south approach road to Blackwall Tunnel in London):
https://www.google.co.uk/search?biw=1600&bih=769&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=MpT3WZivDsy4aZDllYAL&q=pictures+ontario+tower%2C+london&oq=pictures+ontario+tower%2C+london&gs_l=psy-ab.12…54045.56479.0.58953.8.8.0.0.0.0.73.551.8.8.0….0…1.1.64.psy-ab..0.0.0….0.hA1nbzNOc8U#imgrc=N5knkNgpJV7sfM:
‘Illuminati/Masonic owl symbolism’:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHYfTlvjSu8
The statue of an owl at Bohemian Grove represents Moloch.
Sorry Macky it looks like I didn’t make myself clear. When I say ‘design’ I don’t mean anything occult, I mean the opposite – human beings did it on purpose. The Masonic imagery is there because there are powerful Masons everywhere in society, same for Christianity. But a lot of people deny that the Pyramid on the dollar bill is masonic. Why? I suggest because they don’t like the implications. Similarly with the number 11. I don’t believe in the occult but I believe the people who designed 9/11 do and littered it with occult references.
And I added that if Al Qaeda were known to be aficionados of this sort of numerology, most people would have accepted that it was there on purpose.
To all those who say you could take another epoch-making event and find similar patterns, I say ‘Show me one.’
@KOWN, Ok, apologies for the misapprehension; I totally agree that there are powerful Masons everywhere, and of course even more low-level ones; and this will explain why Masonic symbols are so prevalent; however the question is are these powerful ones, a force for bad, good, or at most harmless, as the low-level Masons would have us believe ?
The problem in answering this boils back down to whetever you believe that the recurring patterns/symbols/co-incidences, for instance in 911, are deliberate, or just a product of freaky randomness that just made them to happen to fall that way, and we only spot them because we are looking specifically for these patterns, ignoring other patterns that may be present; and having noticed them then give them a pre-determined meaning & significance ?
Some may try to counter this by trying to argue that the chances of that particular “pattern” are a million to one, or even greater, but that doesn’t actually count as definite prove, and I refer back to the Law of Truly Large Numbers; sure, a million to one chance seems very unlikely, but hey countless people regularly play the Lottery, and that million to one chance does actually occur on a fairly regular basis, in fact in a period of twenty years, it’s happened to 3,600 lucky people, that’s once every two days !
Sorry to go effectively go back to square-one again, but hard evidence seems to always elude the suspicion that high-level Masons are practicing evil Satanists, as recently shown by the PizzaGate Case, which has lots of circumstantial “patterns”, but I’ve yet to see anything that I would class as hard evidence.
Paul, I know, it’s everywhere. The Shard has 111 panes of glass.
@KOWN, interesting reply ! Your cited examples that for you indicate “design”, namely Masonic Imagery & the belief in Numerology, are problematic for me, and I consider myself not just opened-minded, but also inclined to some appreciation of the mystical aspects of our existence.
If something can be explained or interpreted rationally, then it’s not the “real McCoy”, it’s “Fool’s Gold”, and to complete the hat-trick of clichés (!), it’s just Red-Herrings !
Sure I agree that there is a lot of Masonic imagery around us, just like there is a lot of Christian Imagery around us; both are belief systems whose adherents feel it’s their duty to leave symbols/codes/devotional signs in honour of their belief systems. Why is that surprising ? The difference I supposed between the two is that Freemasonry has a bit of a bad rap, so it’s more discreet, and it adherents try to avoid drawing too much attention to themselves, and so are not up-front in admitting that yes their Masonic symbols are deliberately placed in so many places & on so many everyday objects.
Likewise with Numerology, as I articulated before, in the infinite number of permutation/possibilities that exist in rational reality, all sorts of freaky patterns/co-incidences/”synchronicities” are bound to be discovered/noticed: this principle actually has a name & is called “The Law of Truly Large Numbers”, which state that with a large enough sample many odd coincidences are likely to happen.
It seems reasonable to me that both your examples, (and also with the case of Paul Barbara’s Twin Towers imagery in popular cultures), can be explained rationally, without recourse to the supernatural powers of the Occult/Dark Side, or whatever else. I’m pretty confident in stating that these & other similar examples of the seemingly paranormal, only seem that way, because of being compounded by at least two illogical fallacies, namely Post Hoc theorizing, & Confirmation Bias.
I would actually like you, (or anybody else), to persuade me that I could be wrong, and that there is maybe something unexplainable & irrational in your examples for “Design”, as I want confirmation for my feeling that there is something mysterious, beyond our comprehension, that may point to some answers for the Human Predicament, but for these specific two examples, I’m sorry to say, I am unconvinced.
Macky, sorry my reply is above yours for some reason.
KingofWelshnoir, that’s a remarkable compilation; did you compose it yourself? I expect it could be paired down but I don’t feel like doing that at present.
I’ll assume enough remains to continue to convince; it’s the sort of thing that should be remembered for its possibility but not allowed to cloud the mind, I hope you agree? Events, actions and participants must be examined by facts, reason and ethics, not fitting them against the grand symbolic scheme you’ve described.
We must not use your compilation to determine whether any claims about events are true or false. Certainly we must not lower our standard of proof to “that compilation is very unlikely unless hidden agency was involved, yet it is true. I have an assertion that is less unlikely than that without hidden agency, so it is almost certainly true”. Doing so would also add even more “evidence” for hidden agency. Soon almost any assertion could be judged to be true, the result of hidden agency, and further evidence of hidden agency. Sound familiar?
Further, we must not assume that all hidden characters and covert actions are necessarily sinister; there may be opposition or conflict in the hidden realm. We would presumably find even benignity and mundanity if we were to catalogue symbols surrounding beneficial, mediocre, boring or unimportant characters and events.
Therefore, verification and reason must be applied first. Any pattern of the symbolism may be noted afterwards but must remain a curiosity.
What can you tell me about Kubrick? Did he do something bad?
By the way, I have read that 1 is the most frequent numeral in all sorts of sources of numbers, the successively higher numerals becoming less and less likely. House numbers, for instance, have more 1s than anything else. There are well understood reasons for this. This quirk can used statistically to detect concocted expense bills, for instance.
More people get to be 1 than any other age in years. By the time we are 21 we will have spent well over half our life with a 1 in our age. If we get to 99 that will have fallen to about 19% of our years, nearly double what you might guess at first sight, and then it starts going up again. 1/9 = 0.11111….
So, my experience of the 9/11 “Truth” movement.
Nearly all are exaggerators, many are liars, and a few are anti-Semites. They all back each other up in the generation of fiction, and they collaborate to smear any critical thinkers.
They should be ashamed of themselves, but seem to feel very superior. I’m not the least surprised that they have achieved precisely nothing, in fact their results are worse than useless because they spread confusion and disinformation.
Fat lot you’ve achieved with your pseudo science.
As I wrote, “they collaborate to smear any critical thinkers”.
I honestly wish you hadn’t just proven me right yet again. It’s depressing.
Still no one getting their teeth into this destruction of NIST’s pack of lies?
‘A Structural Reevaluation of the Collapse of World Trade Center 7’:
‘http://ine.uaf.edu/media/92216/wtc7-structural-reevaluation_progress-report_2017-9-7.pdf’
I lay no claim to any architecture or engineering knowledge, but for those who do make these claims of knowledge, what an opportunity.
Prof. Halsey is welcoming input from any and all before he makes the ‘Final Report’.
I know that WTC7’s collapse is far too complicated for me. Danny Jowenko said he couldn’t explain it, FEMA said they didn’t understand it, and NIST said they were still having trouble after years. They have plans, far more expertise and data, big staffs, big computers and FEA, all of which I don’t. I’ve read some mainstream engineers and scientists and they all say its complicated, so I’ll let the questions roll in and see what boils out of it.
I can see what happened to the Twin Towers; they were relatively simple collapses, easy to see great consistency with progressive collapse. WTC7’s collapse isn’t entirely consistent with anything I can think of.
My bad. Dolomite’s better than natural aggregate. However, concrete with any aggregate can lose half its compressive strength by 600C:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271767318_Effect_of_aggregate_type_on_the_fire_resistance_of_normal_and_self-compacting_concretes
Revised post, as free expression seems to have taken a bit of a hit:
UAF conclusions, as linked above:
UAF Conclusions:
•
The concrete floor diaphragm stiffness is significant and even with no shear
connectors, frictional resistance to thermal expansion is not
trival
.
•
The thermal expansion of the concrete deck cannot be ignored and it is likely
less than steel (the value is highly dependent upon the type of aggregate).
•
The research team evaluated fire by considering the air space below the beams
in the space between the drop ceiling and the structural steel framing. The
result is that a fire underneath will likely burn through the drop ceiling quickly
and its resistance to heat transfer is likely not available to help.
•
The NIST vertical collapse was not consistent with that of the actual collapse.
The difference was primarily influenced by not modeling a significant portion of
the structural framing connection details.
That is, NIST’s conclusions were suspect because it didn’t cover some of the relevant factors. Which is unsurprising – even the UAF was forced to keep the model’s complexity within bounds by selecting what it too could ignore. Both seem to have done a competent job, but a model is only a model.
This will undoubtedly be reinterpreted as: NIST was concealing the facts and WTC7 collapsed because the global elite marched round it seven times blowing trumpets, but there’s not much you can do about passionate believers.
The highlighting of concrete properties is relevant, I think. Whether or not the expansion of concrete at high temperatures were to prove significant, it does become porous and lose a lot of strength as it dehydrates. Above 600C it can lose half its tensile and compressive strength, and I wouldn’t think it improves its shear strength either.
Carry on arguing.
Ba’al, thank you.
Indeed, passionate belief itself needs to be tackled. Dispassionate consideration is sorely lacking.
‘In Shocking Interview, Qatar Confesses Secrets Behind Syrian War’:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/48117.htm
‘A television interview of a top Qatari official confessing the truth behind the origins of the war in Syria is going viral across Arabic social media during the same week a leaked top secret NSA document was published which confirms that the armed opposition in Syria was under the direct command of foreign governments from the early years of the conflict.
And according to a well-known Syria analyst and economic adviser with close contacts in the Syrian government, the explosive interview constitutes a high level “public admission to collusion and coordination between four countries to destabilize an independent state, [including] possible support for Nusra/al-Qaeda.” Importantly, “this admission will help build case for what Damascus sees as an attack on its security & sovereignty. It will form basis for compensation claims.”…..’
Not that many of us didn’t know already, but it is good to get more evidence. Shows our ‘conspiracy theories’ were fact-based and true.
Yes it sounds like part of the realignment that is taking place in Middle East!
Danny Jowenko didn’t say he couldn’t understand WTC 7, he said it was controlled demolition, for sure.
All he couldn’t figure out was how they could do it when the building was on fire (obviously it was done before the WTC’s 1&2 came down, as Barry Jennings very clearly explained).
‘Danny Jowenko on WTC 7 controlled demolition’: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=877gr6xtQIc
He was 100% sure WTC 7 was brought down with controlled demolition, not by fire or even little green men from Mars.
Here are Danny Jowenko’s words. His certainty is clear.
DANNY JOWENKO: This is a controlled demolition.
INTERVIEWER: You’re sure?
DANNY JOWENKO: Absolutely, it’s been imploded. This was a hired job, performed by a team of experts.
INTERVIEWER: But it also happened on 9/11
DANNY JOWENKO: The same day? The same day? Are you sure?
INTERVIEWER: Yes.
DANNY JOWENKO: Are you sure it was the 11th? That can’t be.
INTERVIEWER: Seven hours after the World Trade Centre.
DANNY JOWENKO: (SHAKING HEAD) Then they worked hard.
And what did he say after he was told the building was on fire?
And why did you BOTH quote selectively?
A demolition CANNOT be CONTROLLED in a burning building. That does not mean that WTC7 was not demolished.
Why do TRUTHERS constantly MISLEAD?
Why do they do it in such a subtle, insidious manner?
He was answering in innocence of the foul play involved. That is on initial viewing he answered it was obviously controlled demolition, but when told about the fire, realised this was no ordinary controlled demolition and again innocently and half-jokingly said the team would have to work fast to do it in a few hours, only later realising it was criminally pre-rigged over preceding days.
No, Jowenko never once so much as hinted that he believed WTC7 to have been pre-rigged.
If you know otherwise, link to evidence.
I am loathed to reply to the anti-Semite “Dave”, but falsehood must be countered.
As it would take some time to rig a building that size, it would have to be pre-rigged, and so criminally pre-rigged, which any honest person would conclude, having thought about it.
You have no right to define people’s honesty by their conformity to your unjustified and ill-conceived conclusions.
He said it was a controlled demolition carried out by a team of experts. Experts don’t rush things, in case of mistakes that would reflect badly on their professionalism. So they take their time, meaning rigging a building of that size would take some time. In context, once you know it hadn’t been officially and publicly rigged, it becomes criminally rigged, which must be the conclusion if you think about it.
– “Experts don’t rush things, in case of mistakes that would reflect badly on their professionalism”
Mistakes such as rigging a building with explosives while it was still occupied? Your assertion is self contradictory “if you think about it”, which I did.
And your comment confirms why it wasn’t rushed.
No it does not. It is merely your assertion, contradicted by me, and contradicted by the words of the deceased Danny Jowenko. You seem to be attempting to dishonestly appropriate credibility.
If as you say there is a risk in rigging WT7 whilst occupied, same as twin towers, then the risk is increased if rushed, hence to reduce risk, don’t rush it. Your implication that they could rush it in a few hours would require the team of experts to be criminally assembled beforehand. Elementary!
I get an impression that you don’t take your own argument seriously.
Evacuation and cordoning off of WTC7 wasn’t complete until the early afternoon. If an emergency demolition was ordered, it would seem logical that explosives couldn’t be moved in until the site was secured, about four hours before collapse.
There is simply no reason to suspect pre-rigged explosives in the Twin Towers because their collapses were consistent with structural failure and progressive collapse; that’s my own assessment based on careful observation and physics, not off some website.
So not including assembling the team, you conclude it only took 4 hours to rig and detonate, and the other two fell due to shock?
IF, and I repeat IF, WTC7 was subject to emergency demolition, then that seems the likely sequence of events, yes, though wiring and preparation could have begun before the exclusion zone was enforced.
The Twin Towers show every sign of having suffered progressive collapse caused by structural failure.
If an emergency demolition was carried out, then presumably it was authorised by someone, any ideas? And what makes you think 4 hours would be enough time?
I don’t know enough about the US system to speculate who could order such a thing, but you could find out when a “state of emergency” or “state of war” was declared, because that has legal implications about what military personnel may and may not do on the US mainland. Or you might find clues in the court documents for Silverstein’s insurance claims.
I think four hours is enough because it’s comparable with the timescale of similar military operations. Sorry, the following is the best I can find at present. You’ll have to explore; there’s a list of missions with timings somewhere, but I can’t remember where:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underwater_Demolition_Team
Underwater demolition has to be quite quick because there’s only so much air in the scuba tanks. Jesse Ventura was in that outfit I linked, and now of course he promotes Twin Tower demolition theory along with loads of other bunk and half truths on his TV programme Conspiracy Theory. The various demolition theories are actually rather mainstream; awareness of the purpose of the torture policy much less so.
So you think 4 hours enough, with how many people involved?
I don’t know, and I see no point in speculating.
A better way forward would be to download Hulsey’s UAF model if it is available, (*), look at the design of WTC7, guess the best points to sever to drop the core, check their accessibility, run the simulation including those cuts to see how well it works, refine by returning to (*) until you get something like what WTC7 actually did, then estimate how many man-hours it would take just to place the cutting materials (assuming wiring could be done before the exclusion zone was enforced), and divide by four to guess the size of the team.
And yet you speculate on so many things, including preposterous notions about gravitational disintegration of concrete and steel, so please try, as I know you can come up with something.
No, Dave, I don’t. Earth’s gravity generally just accelerates things. It’s when they collide with each other or with the ground that they get crushed, pulverised, or broken apart, by the electromagnetic forces between atoms.
Or as they say; gravity never hurt anyone, it’s when you stop…
Paul, sorry, I now see that you did mention Jowenko’s response when told of the fire. Note that he was only informed right at the end, and his shock and his entire change in demeanour must be taken as part of his reaction, his answer.
I’m sorry I overlooked that part of your reply until now. You might be surprised how hectic it is taking on an entire thread of others with very minimal support, while they evade answering, repeatedly change the subject, and frequently communicate in innuendo. Oh for a bit of honest, open communication!
Something we can all agree on and be disturbed by.
One result of this ‘fake news’ hysteria is Google (and Facebook) have changed their search algorithm in such a way that hundreds of left wing, anti-war, alternative news websites have had their website visitor numbers slashed. People searching for anti-establishment terms are being pushed away from the alternative media towards the corporate media. But of course it is invisible to the searcher. The graph on this page
https://www.truthdig.com/articles/googles-threat-to-democracy-continues-to-hit-alternative-media/
shows the plunge in web traffic to one such site – Alternet – after the algorithm change. Rather Orwellian and chilling, no?
Or is it, rather, Orwellian and chilling that Google have been pushing fabricated stories for many years preceding this change?:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-123/#comment-704673
Google fails to return Robin Cook’s On the Point of Departure
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-123/#comment-703944
KoWN, I don’t want Google to find lies and deception for me and my neighbours.
MODERATORS, I would like you to take the highly personal comment of mine that you suppressed and post it prominently at the front of this thread. Leave this comment too.
Macky believes I am mendacious, but is being seduced by something far more sinister. Macky needs to know who I am.
King of Welsh Noir, I suspect that you are actively evil.
You can change that by engaging with me as an equal. STOP ignoring me. I want answers.
MODS! Ad hominem – please leave as evidence of the King of Welsh Noir’s Christlike capacity for forgiveness.
If you felt slighted, demonstrate substance to your forgiveness by engaging with the questions I have raised. They are about determining TRUTH and evaluating ETHICS. If people are to be subject to suspicion or punished for crimes merely because pyramids or domes were deemed to be associated with them, that is EVIL.
You have accused a film maker, Stanley Kubrick, yet you have cited nothing bad that he has done. Make your accusation against him plain.
You most assuredly CAN have a controlled demolition in a burning building, IF IT WAS PRE-RIGGED, which has been my position all along.
Remember WTC 7 was not a raging inferno, but had limited fires on perhaps half a dozen floors.
Demolition materials can’t be CONTROLLED under conditions of UNCONTROLLED fire and UNCONTROLLED damage. Think about the meaning of the word “controlled”, because “controlled demolition” is more than just a catch-phrase; it is a description of a commercial service.
Pre-rigging just makes matters WORSE, because the technicians would have to be able to PREDICT the precise damage and fire patterns.
Danny Jowenko knew all that, because he was a contractor in controlled demolition. That is why he responded as he did (shock, dismay, and his admission of incomprehension) when the fire was eventually revealed to him.
He should have been told at the outset, but that’s not the “Truther” style. They got him on video before letting him know.
@ Clark October 31, 2017 at 16:07
‘…Pre-rigging just makes matters WORSE, because the technicians would have to be able to PREDICT the precise damage and fire patterns.’
Hardly difficult to predict, because the fires were set by the perps.
No matter how you twist and turn, Barry Jennings stated unequivocally that the stairs blew up while the Twins were still standing – thus not as a result of falling debris from WTC2. He also said it was extremely hot (hardly from fires burning around the top of WTC 1, across the way.
Incidentally, what kind of ‘debris’ would cause an interior staircase to ‘blow up’? Staircases are very strong, that is why they are one of the first things controlled demolition experts set to be blown up in initial stages of the demolition.
I still don’t understand why you don’t check out Prof. Hulsey’s work; he and his team came to the conclusion that fires could not have caused the collapse of WTC 7.
You wouldn’t need vast computer banks to check his work – at least take a look at it:
‘http://ine.uaf.edu/media/92216/wtc7-structural-reevaluation_progress-report_2017-9-7.pdf’
(the link works, but you’ll have to copy and paste it in search box).
Sophistry at its finest!
@Clark
You impugn my motive, and you are an anti-Semite.
New from Pilots for 9/11 Truth:
‘The entire flight analyzed in detail as provided by the National Transportation Safety Board. This feature film follows the flight as it happens in real time throughout the Air Traffic Control System on September 11, 2001. Analysis includes The Flight Data Recorder, The money and cover-up, Air Traffic Control and Radar, NORAD response and the shocking conflicts/possibilities based on information provided by the US Government. Extras include phone calls with a Flight Data Recorder expert regarding Flight Data Recorder accuracy and new calls with the FBI trying to get answers.’
Click here for more details –
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/digital_download#f77hd
As an aside in a recent post I said I could not understand why WTC7 wasn’t given a better excuse for falling down than just catching on fire if the explosive demolition theory is correct.
I received a couple of plausible possibilities from contributes here namely it had been planned for an aircraft to become involved but it didn’t turn up (not sure how easy it would have been to get an aircraft into that particular building) And that WTC7 had so many dirty secrets within (possibly involving the the demolitions themselves) it had to go regardless.
Clark provides a new direction of thought with his earlier comment (unintentionally I am guessing because what he says isn’t true).
“A demolition CANNOT be CONTROLLED in a burning building. That does not mean that WTC7 was not demolished.”
Whist being completely untrue, burning buildings can be brought down by controlled demolition in the same way a non burning building can be, it would be sensible for the explosives to be in place before the building is set on fire.
But the removal of WTC7 may only have been a a back up plan if things went wrong, a contingency for protecting its secrets (eg if WTC7 had been so badly damaged by cascading rubble (not fire) it would have meant rescue teams would have to go into all areas to make safe before repair or demolition). Only the highest of aurthorised persons were allowed into the most sensitive parts of that building.
The other thought was that if the flames / heat were getting too close to the explosives. Whilst many explosives can withstand fire without detonating (an oil fuel fire bath is a way of destroying the explosive without detonating it) The detonator is less safe, if that gets too hot it will pop and initiate the main charge but also thermite is a pyrotechnic, it doesn’t need a detonator to get it going, fire will do the trick.
But because the building wasn’t burning in a uniform manner it means that some explosives / pyrotechnics would get hot before others, that would lead an unsymmetrical collapse with the possibility of leaving non initiated explosives in place and intact for later discovery.
For the building to drop the way it did, all core supports had to fail at the same time (instantaneously). Which incidently would not have happened if the NIST theory was true: A corner core support gave way and began a chain reaction / domino effect. If that were true the collapse would not have been symmetrical.
Peter, sorry, I am short of time. See my reply to Paul above.
Clark,
you don’t know how WTC7 fell.
You have no expertise in explosives, ( the fact is your perceived knowledge so misguided you are making a fool of yourself).
Yet you know without doubt that explosive demolition was not involved.
You are irrationally abusive.
Give it up, you are harming yourself not your campaign. Your campaign is already dead in the water.
Peter, I openly admit that I don’t know how WTC7 fell, and I have never claimed knowledge of explosives. Explosive demolition is one of the possibilities I consider regarding WTC7; you can’t have read many of my comments.
– “the fact is your perceived knowledge so misguided you are making a fool of yourself”
I will not be bullied from the thread, as “Truthers” have bullied so many. Cite and link this “perceived knowledge”; if I have something demonstrably wrong I will correct it.
– “You are irrationally abusive”
Cite and link, or retract. I stand by my comments. Though on occasions I have snapped back, I have been extremely patient with all the deception and misrepresentation that I have found to be typical of “Truthers”.
– “Give it up, you are harming yourself not your campaign. Your campaign is already dead in the water”
What campaign are you referring to? You seem to be accusing me of something; have the common decency to state it clearly.
– “the fact is your perceived knowledge so misguided you are making a fool of yourself”
Cite and link this “perceived knowledge”; if I have something demonstrably wrong I will correct it.
“No, Jowenko never once so much as hinted that he believed WTC7 to have been pre-rigged. If you know otherwise, link to evidence.”
The fact is you don’t know and cannot work out for yourself what you got wrong here. Explosive experts do not go into burning buildings and take explosive with them.
– “You are irrationally abusive”
Cite and link, or retract. I stand by my comments
“King of Welsh Noir, I suspect that you are actively evil. You can change that by engaging with me as an equal. STOP ignoring me. I want answers.”
Again if you don’t know what is exceedingly disturbing about this comment then you have a very serious problem
– “Give it up, you are harming yourself not your campaign. Your campaign is already dead in the water”
What campaign are you referring to? You seem to be accusing me of something; have the common decency to state it clearly.
You’re clinging onto an obsession and anybody and everybody that disagrees with your misinformed and irrational reasoning is fair game for extreme abuse. I am accusing you of nothing other than pointing out that your emotional delicacy and agression does no harm to anyone but you. It adds nothing to the debate but unpleasantness.
I will not respond to anymore of your self obsessed unreasonableness.
I have explained what evil “King”ofWelshNoir is engaged in; making and encouraging false accusations on the basis of randomly found objects rather than evidence of wrongdoing. “King” is welcome to engage with my argument, but instead he ignores it.
– “You’re clinging onto an obsession and anybody and everybody that disagrees with your misinformed and irrational reasoning is fair game for extreme abuse”
Name or describe the obsession; cite or retract. Likewise with “misinformed and irrational reasoning”, and “extreme abuse”. I am one of very few rational and reasonable contributors to the thread.
WT7 was a hidden crime within a crime. That is, how many people, more so recently, know about WT7, because its never had much coverage and intentionally so. A plane would have attracted attention which wasn’t part of the plan, and if people can believe two planes brought down the twin towers, they will make excuses for WT7.
– “WT7 was a hidden crime…”
It wasn’t hidden very well then, was it? It’s ridiculous to think that something like that could ever be hidden. It was even reported before it happened, which seems highly counter-productive to hiding it.
– “A plane would have attracted attention which wasn’t part of the plan”
Oh, so you know the plan, then. Therefore, whoever told you must be in on it.
– “if people can believe two planes brought down the twin towers, they will make excuses for WT7”
I make no “excuses” for WTC7. I don’t claim to know what happened to it, I speculate and watch developments, and I am curious.
You appear unaware that there is little popular knowledge about the third tower! It was one of those details highlighted and then hidden in the dust of the twin towers and the rush to war on behalf of those who perpetrated the crime. The two planes reported on MSM, provided the dramatic cover story, but only official conspiracy theorists believe they caused the towers to collapse. The fact you claim to be puzzled by WT7, is of course a puzzle in itself, or not!!!
There has been little interest or coverage of WTC7’s collapse because it killed no one, and it was just one of many not so famous buildings destroyed or damaged that day.
– “only official conspiracy theorists believe [the aircraft] caused the towers to collapse”
Ah ha. Only witches can survive the ducking stool, so all survivors must be burned. You’ve got that sewn up, then.
So now your agreeing it was hidden, and would blame the water rather than the dunking stool?
No, the collapse was not hidden, it was just treated with less interest. Oddly enough, most people are more concerned by the human suffering than by the destruction of buildings.
The “Truth” movement could learn from this. You would do much better if you kept stressing that the 9/11 Commission Report is 50% based on false confessions extracted under torture. Who do you think changed this heading from “harsh interrogation”? Not me, by any chance?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_9/11_Commission#Interrogation_under_torture
Sorry, I exaggerated. The Report was 25% based on torture. Condoleezza Rice gave the order specifically to justify the devastation of Iraq:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2009/04/waterboarding_a/
The article before and after my revisions on May 6 2015 from Plusnet IP address 87.114.174.210 which I was connecting through at the time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_the_9%2F11_Commission&action=historysubmit&type=revision&diff=661172358&oldid=650511014
My revisions have not been undone because I backed them up with authoritative citations. My ISP is Plusnet:
http://www.killick1.plus.com/home.html
Any questions?
And others are more interested in covering it all up to aid and abet mass murder at home and abroad!
Interesting;
“FBI spokeswoman Susan McKee said: “The limited redactions relate to individuals who provided information during the course of the investigation, and whose lives may be at risk if they are publicly identified.”
At risk from who or what ?!
http://news.sky.com/story/remaining-john-f-kennedy-files-to-be-released-11106577
These are part of Prof. Hulsey’s report; even I can understand some of this:
‘“A girder was considered to have lost vertical support when
its web was no longer supported by the bearing seat. The
bearing seat at Column 79 was 11 in. wide. Thus, when the
girder end at Column 79 had been pushed laterally at least 5.5
in., it was no longer supported by the bearing seat.”
NIST NCSTAR 1-9 Page 525, 2008
NIST changed the 5.5 to 6.25 inches when it was
shown that the seat was actually 12 inches wide.’
‘Plan View of girder A2001 moving
across its bearing seat at column
79 due to thermal expansion of the
beams framing into the girder from
the east.
Note: This picture illustrates that
A2001 is trapped by the column
side plate and it is not possible for
it to move the girder web beyond
the seat as claimed by NIST.
It appears that NIST did not
examine the side plate influence
on the restriction of movement by
the girder.’
‘This model shows the influence
of the thermal expansion at the
north east corner of floor 13.
When girder A2001 is trapped
behind the side plate on column
79, beams K3004 and D3004
begin to buckle.’
‘Lateral support beams S3007, G3007 & K3007 were left off
G3005 in the NIST analysis.’
‘UAF analysis showing beam
G3005 does not buckle when
lateral support beams S3007,
G3007, and K3007, spanning to it
from the north exterior wall,
are installed.’
‘Section view of actual configuration of girder A2001 at its
column 79 end from Frankel 1985 drawing 9114, showing
its partial height web stiffeners.’
‘Figure 8-21 from NIST WTC 7
Report
Note: partial height web stiffeners
are missing; this is not per Frankel
1985.’
Those are parts of the Hulsey Report. Yet Kempe won’t touch the report; he replied, when again I asked for pwople to look at Prof. Halsey’s Repot:
‘I know that WTC7’s collapse is far too complicated for me. Danny Jowenko said he couldn’t explain it, FEMA said they didn’t understand it, and NIST said they were still having trouble after years. They have plans, far more expertise and data, big staffs, big computers and FEA, all of which I don’t. I’ve read some mainstream engineers and scientists and they all say its complicated, so I’ll let the questions roll in and see what boils out of it………’
But it really is very simple in parts, even for someone with no knowledge of architecture of engineering.
A lot of it is written in layman’s language.
NIST simply lied, and fixed their ‘results’ to their desired result.
It will be interesting to see how NIST responds, as hopefully they will be forced to.
Paul, you seem to have confused me and Kempe. It’s a very bad sign if individuals are becoming as alike as sheeple to you!
Yes, I can understand that stuff, but it isn’t clear what it actually means, and it tells me nothing about why the final part of the collapse, that of the outside walls, was so sudden, fast and symmetrical. It doesn’t tell me why the roof-line descended at around or even exceeding free fall. These are the things I want to know. It doesn’t surprise me in the least that the report falls far short of perfection; you seem to have no idea how complex the task was that NIST were attempting; it’s only a bit easier than trying to explain the precise positions of each speck of coffee grounds left in your cup, starting from the equations of fluid dynamics and an estimate of the initial conditions.
And you should be careful how you interpret:
– “partial height web stiffeners are missing; this is not per Frankel 1985”
Assuming Frankel are construction plans, do we know for certain that the web stiffeners were ever installed? Maybe the delivery was delayed and the site manager ordered the construction team to proceed without them in order to stay on schedule, or something. NIST may be trying to tell the world that the stiffeners were never present, and that consequently the building could have self-destructed in a high enough wind. You have to be very careful about making assumptions.
(deaf ears predicted).
@ Clark October 31, 2017 at 21:00
Come clean.
Does it answer all your questions? Did I say it did? Does Halsey & Co. say it will?
No, I said it exposes the LIES the PTB trot out incessantly.
(Remember the Quwaiti ‘Incubator Baby LIES’)? WMD ‘LIES’? All manner of other ‘LIES’?).
What it shows is NIST ‘mistakes’ (to put it mildly!).
‘….And you should be careful how you interpret:
– “partial height web stiffeners are missing; this is not per Frankel 1985”
Assuming Frankel are construction plans, do we know for certain that the web stiffeners were ever installed? Maybe the delivery was delayed and the site manager ordered the construction team to proceed without them in order to stay on schedule, or something. NIST may be trying to tell the world that the stiffeners were never present, and that consequently the building could have self-destructed in a high enough wind. You have to be very careful about making assumptions……’
Are you for real? Why on earth should NIST ‘assume’ these vital elements weren’t there???????.
Did they explain?
Pretty deaf I am, but I ain’t stupid (other than engaging with you).
I dunno. Have you written to NIST? Is there a FAQ? Is it discussed anywhere?
– “No, I said it exposes the LIES the PTB trot out incessantly”
Well I’d say that’s putting it too strongly; let’s see what happens. It looks more like it mostly checks out, doesn’t it? They did mange to simulate a total collapse, right? And is it roughly right? ie penthouse, pause, more penthouse, pause, fast and complete outer collapse? Ba’al rightly highlighted this bit:
– “The NIST vertical collapse was not consistent with that of the actual collapse. The difference was primarily influenced by not modeling a significant portion of the structural framing connection details.”
That sounds like UAF got a better fit than NIST. Even if they had to tweak it a bit, it’s still alarming that a simulation can do that at all. Can many buildings do that, or did WTC7 have a critical weakness? Could other buildings even be worse? Is it possible to predict, or can it only be discovered in hindsight? These are now the interesting questions.
The demolition argument should now (also) consider; could those failures have been initiated deliberately, and if so, how?
It sounds to me like Truthers should probably be slagging off Prof Hulsey and his report even more than they do NIST. Maybe they haven’t realised yet. Please keep me informed.
And a question I’d really like an answer to. Is UAF’s entire software and dataset available? ie. can others download it, run it and tweak it themselves?
Has anyone reading looked around the NIST FOIA video library?
https://www.youtube.com/user/WTCFOIAVideos/videos
I’m currently watching the following:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XdwwKbxd9c
The plume from the second impact looks a lot like a mushroom cloud for a few seconds. News coverage is heard in the apartment where the video was made. Interesting, and horrifying. The NIST library has lots of raw video like this.
Peter Beswick, if you were referring to me getting angry the other night you should have said so. I am not inclined to apologise for that yet because I am still angry, because so far there has been no recognition of what I’m angry about.
For months and years I have heard and been the target of the sly digs constantly made by conspiracy theorists, whom I so name because of their enthusiasm for responding to all and any factual, rational challenge by hinting that the challenger must be acting on behalf of their presumed conspiracy. I think anyone who does that may be accurately described as a conspiracy theorist, whether the CIA weaponised the term or not.
Such hints are made again and again on this thread. Not so many about me because I kick up a stink, but you know what it has been like when Kempe has visited.
Many assertions turn out to be backed by little more than this argument. The physics arguments are a little different; they usually result in me being told I can’t do physics by someone who won’t talk through a physics argument to a conclusion, or who periodically tells the same three or four lies about the physics that we have discussed. We have the wonderful beer can example above, where I am slagged off because I’d guessed the scaling right, and then the subject is quickly changed to one with a very misleading claim:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-123/#comment-704846
Much of the material presented on this thread is fantasy. There is more than I could possibly examine, but many of the claims I have looked into have turned out to be concocted bullshit to various extents, often quite blatant; these should be acknowledged far more often and more fully than they are. If you want to concoct fiction and parallel worlds there are plenty of forums where you can do so honestly. If you do so here, at this thread I continually reopened, you can expect to encounter me and my scepticism, and be told that you should display more intellectual honesty and respect to other commenters, including me. There is absolutely nothing I can do about it; indeed, the present moderators have been restraining some of my comments. So I blew my top; all I have is words and you didn’t even see the worst of them. But to me the generation of misleading mythology and suppression of challenge looks deliberate, cooperative, and (often passive-) aggressive, and it infuriates me.
Are you sure its not a team effort?
Am I sure what is not a team effort?
Conspiracy theory
Charges including conspiracy are heard in hundreds of Courts up and down the land every day, they are real, they are not made up (the charges may be made up but that is just a different level of conspiracy theory)
The pejorative use of the term has for many years been used by those guilty and supporters of real conspiracies to distract and discredit accusation, evidence and attempts at exposing the wrongdoing.
I have never actually heard it used against someone who was actually making a very clearly false claim with little or no evidence.
State sponsored conspiracies can take many years to be exposed which is a basic principal of the art, run it as long as you can until the culprits are dead.
Watergate, care-home paedophile rings, Hillsborough, Bloody Sunday, Iran Contra Affair, Dr David Kelly etc. etc. Even when culprits of the original crimes and the cover ups are exposed during their lifetime’s justice is too often impotent because the people who run the State cover ups also run the Justice System. Justice is selective.
(Note here: the original crime and the cover up are separate and distinct crimes, the cover up often being the more serious because of the increased distress caused and decreased confidence trust it causes to the public, in our Governments and Justice System).
Anyone who uses the term to scorn a person, group or groups who believe that 9/11 did have an element of explosive demolition is a bloody fool. Particularly when it has not been disproved, it was not even investigated by NIST.
911 is an extremely important topic anybody who uses that term in relation to it should be completely ignored as they add nothing, zero, zilch to the debate but rather irrational distraction, they have no interest in learning the truth and instead they replace it by abuse.
And that means that your ridiculous concoction about landing gear deserve to be taken as seriously as the revelations of genuine whistle-blowers, I expect. As I wrote above:
– “Many assertions turn out to be backed by little more than this argument”
I don’t know the truth
I don’t have the intellectual capacity, professional qualifications or financial resources to learn the truth
But I do know that people who say this is the direction of the truth because here is the evidence, those people are wrong.
Those people are wrong because they are liars, anti-semites, conspiracy theorists and evil!
ffs
None of us know the truth, but all of us should be able to tell who is being honest and who isn’t, who is acting with integrity and who is just pushing fantasy. When people lie about physics, and even simple numerical matters like scaling, it is pretty obvious that they are just pushing their favourite fantasies.
I’m telling you that I have seen Dave recommend anti-Semitic material. That recommendation has since been removed under site moderation rules. You can treat what I say with respect, or you can gratify the others on this thread by pretending I made a false allegation because my physics is no good. But just think for a moment. I know whether I’m an agent or not, and I know whether my physics is right or wrong. I’m making judgements too, including judgements about you.
– “I don’t know the truth”
…but which yarn were you hoping to promote by pretending it was unlikely to find landing gear in the state it was photographed?
For those that are bored by attempts to lead those that are genuinely interested in learning the truth of 911 up countless cul-de-sacs I will explain my strategy for gaining a better understanding. There will be some that despise and resent my approach but I can live with that.
Up until a few days ago I was not even aware that WTC7 was not rectangular in plan and that the central core was not symmetrical either. I suspect that this might be an important aspect of the research but I am not going to dwell on it too long, the point of bringing it up is I am fresh to this research.
And I am very lucky that extensive, previous research has been conducted, one major set completed work and another ongoing but due any day now to publish a draft report.
Because of my conspiracy theory background I am a very lazy researcher so I am going to take what I think is the easiest route to convince myself once and for all, one way or another if 9/11 involved explosive demolition.
There are three outcomes 1) It did, 2) it didn’t or 3) the results are inconclusive.
If 2) That’s the end of the story for me.
If 3) More investigation and research is required until the subject is exhausted or a definitive and authoritative answer is determined
If 1) Then I want to know who covered it up and why and then prosecuted. That may lead in turn to exposing all the layers of cover up, who was at the top? And that may lead to the commissioners, planners and executors.
The horrible saga is about to enter a very important stage, I am only an observer but one that cares to learn the truth no matter how horrific.
That is going to be my approach, unfortunately because of certain personalities this site has become useless to me in learning more than I know already without encountering extreme unpleasantness, I thank those that have helped steer my direction for knowledge.
Cheers and goodbye
Peter, thanks; that was honest.
I also find much unpleasantness on this thread. I find it most unpleasant when it is jeered that I don’t know Newton’s laws, and when people remain silent about clear anti-Semitism and pretend I made it up. I find it unpleasant when logical challengers are smeared on the assumption that they are agents of the presumed conspiracy.
– “If 1) Then I want to know who covered it up and why and then prosecuted”
If so I would also like to know why it was covered up, but if it was an emergency military-style demolition it may not have been a crime. I don’t know. I remain curious.
And Peter, I for one would rather you raise your standards of investigation rather than leave. If you are fresh to this research, my warning to you is to apply scepticism to Truther claims, because there are mountains of bullshit about and it’s better not to fall into them. And please be careful not to make any more because we’re nearly drowning in it already. I think that’s not asking too much considering the seriousness of the matters discussed.
Peter Beswick; “unfortunately because of certain personalities this site has become useless to me in learning more than I know already without encountering extreme unpleasantness”
Surely instead of letting these people drive you & others away, you can instead just ignore said people, and engage with those that are worth engaging with.
I am worth engaging with Macky; please do not insinuate the opposite. So long as I am treated respectfully, I will be respectful in return. Being honest is an essential aspect of acting with respect.
‘The Still Missing Unambiguous Admission to the Controlled Demolition of WTC 7: http://911blogger.com/topics/larry-silverstein
and here Kevin Barrett interviews Mechanical Engineer Tony Szamboti, who distinctly remembers hearing Larry Silverstein say Bldg. 7 was brought down with controlled demolition on a History Channel episode in 2004:
‘Truth Jihad Radio. 9/11 – Rebekah Roth & Tony Szamboti’:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WENF2txFHk
Following on from KoWN’s illuminating post yesterday…
This conspiracy goes further than I imagined.
This morning, for instance, I cycled past an LED sign outside a business which gives the time/date and temperature.
The time was 07:40 . 7+4=11
The date was 01-11-17 . 1+1+1+7 = 11
The temperature was 11 degrees.
I rest my case.
Glenn_nl, I think you are finally starting to get the hang of this! Take the same route this time next year and let us know if the pattern repeats itself.
I will indeed! Please stand by for 364 days (2018 not being a leap year), and I’ll report back. Best draw no conclusions in the meantime.
KoWN, if you’ve been practising semantic jujitsu, then I apologise for my harsh remarks.
@glenn_ni, back to sarcastic ridiculing & taunting ? I had hoped that the exchanges I’ve been engaging in with both KOWN & Paul Barbara, in which I made the case as why I’m not convinced on some of their povs, might have inspired others to engage in a more civil, respectful, and serious manner.
Your humour bypass operation was successful, I take it?
My humour transplant seems successful, and I’d like to thank you for being one of the donors.
We had ample displays of your sense of “humour” when you were recently part of a very piss poor piss-taking comedy double-act, all sarcasm, ridicule & taunting; wasn’t funny then, isn’t funny now.
My Viz cartoon strip featuring Conspiracy Theorist Bertie Beavis, Sheila Sheeple, and their daughter the crisis actor:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-120/#comment-701872
I particularly liked the later bit about GCHQ not being allowed to see its own evidence in secret court. A little bit of self parody and a reference to my upbringing of heavy religious indoctrination…
You seem very upset about some fictional characters Macky; do you read the Daily Mail perchance?
It’s not just Dave who changes the subject. It seems to be standard procedure.
Something I find very ironic about the “discussion” here is that the Truthers behave just like the authorities they criticise. When asked awkward questions or shown to be in the wrong, they close ranks, fudge the evidence, bluster and change the subject.
This is what is so depressing about it; both “sides” behave very similarly, suggesting that its part of human nature rather than evidence of big conspiracies. If it were conspiracies they might get exposed, but if it’s human nature we’re fucked.
– “When asked awkward questions or shown to be in the wrong, they close ranks, fudge the evidence, bluster and change the subject”
…and smear the challenger, just as was done to Craig when Jack Straw lumped him in with conspiracy theorists, in addition to the false disciplinary charges.
‘9 11 John Kerry admits that WTC7 was brought down by controlled demolition!’:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbReTl3Uin0
Apparently Kerry agrees WTC 7 was controlled demolition (the sound in the video is poor, and I’m pretty deaf, so I can’t confirm his exact words).
Is that the first time you’ve seen that, Paul? I’ve linked to it more than once. Kerry couldn’t answer the question, and speculated that WTC7 was one of the buildings brought down deliberately to render it safe. He told the questioner he would look into it.
And Paul, I’d forgotten about your hearing difficulties until you mentioned it again, so I apologise about my earlier remark which was intended metaphorically, not personally.
‘$200 Reward: Elusive “History’s Business” Episode with Larry Silverstein’:
http://action.ae911truth.org/o/50694/t/0/blastContent.jsp?email_blast_KEY=1309242
‘….Unlike other History series, “History’s Business” episodes are not available to the public for purchase, nor can a complete listing of its past episodes be found on the Internet. In the interview we’re searching for, Silverstein, whose Silverstein Properties owns WTC 7, was asked by the show’s guest host, “What happened to 7?”
Silverstein’s unforgettable reply: “Building 7 was a controlled demolition for safety reasons,” according to an engineer who was watching the program that morning. Until that point, the engineer had been “perplexed as to why Building 7 had completely collapsed so quickly and so symmetrically.” For that reason, Silverstein’s answer is still emblazoned in his memory…..’
Which is exactly the theory I’ve been ridiculed for months for proposing.
So you’ve been proposing controlled demolition? You could have fooled me.
Personally I wouldn’t call it “controlled” demolition. “Controlled demolition” is the name given to a civilian commercial service. I have been proposing that team of military engineers may have brought it down. Maybe civilian experts were seconded to the team as well.
I have used the terms “military demolition”, “impromptu demolition”, “emergency demolition” and “fast and dirty demolition”. “As controlled as possible under the circumstances” is what I am getting at.
Q: What’s the difference between a drummer and a drum machine?
So its uncontrolled controlled demolition!
@ Clark November 1, 2017 at 15:34
So you seem to accept that WTC 7 was brought down with explosives.
We seem to be getting somewhere.
Now, pray tell, if it was such a rushed job, and you would not call it ‘controlled demolition’, why did it come down in a perfectly controlled fashion, one which and CD team would have been proud of, and which an acknowledged expert (Jowenko), when shown the video but not old it was WTC 7, unequivocally said it was a ‘Controlled Demolition’?
He didn’t say it was an ‘uncontrolled demolition’, or a ‘botched rush job demolition’.
Which is why in my and many others opinion, he was killed in a ‘Boston Brakes’ car crash, like Michael Hastings and Princess Di, among many others. I’m sure that you are aware that just as Boeings have an ‘override’ which can take over a plane if it is hijacked (or even if it isn’t), so can cars.
Then back again to Barry Jennings, who said unequivocally that the stairs in WTC7 blew up while both Towers were still standing (your only answer to that was that Barry Jennings must have been confused!). So an eyewitness who goes against your belief of what happened must have been confused – no evidence.
– “So you seem to accept that WTC 7 was brought down with explosives”
No. The whole story of WTC7’s collapse is very weird. Demolition is just one of the options I entertain.
– “We seem to be getting somewhere”
“We”? Never mind. You seem to have an objective of convincing people of certain things, regardless of evidence. I want people to verify assertions, cross reference sources and practice thinking critically. TRUTH, Justice, peace, in case you’ve forgotten. The first step is TRUTH, not “wild allegation that would be a show-stopper if it didn’t fall to bits under the slightest inspection”, otherwise known as a damp squib.
– “why did it come down in a perfectly controlled fashion”
It didn’t. It wrote off two other buildings.
– “an acknowledged expert (Jowenko), when shown the video but not old it was WTC 7, unequivocally said it was a ‘Controlled Demolition”
No one told him about the two trashed buildings. They just showed him some (not all) of the videos, from which you can’t see below about half way down the building. The collapse went further off-centre the further it fell.
As for “Boston brakes”, there have been, I believe, two recalls of cars because research teams of white-hat hackers crafted proof-of-concept exploits to interfere with control systems through the vehicles’ Internet connected entertainment systems. This does not constitute a “remote control”. And Diana and Dodi’s car seemed to be swiped by the white Fiat which turned up incinerated with its owner inside some time later, if Unlawful Killing got its facts straight; nothing to do with software exploits – cars were less advanced in those days.
But it’s relevance to Jowenko is basically zero. Jowenko clearly stated his opinion that the Twin Towers collapsed without explosives. The Twin Tower collapses killed thousands; the collapse of WTC7 killed no one, so Jowenko was not a threat; in fact he could be regarded as an asset to the proposed conspiracy.
And as for Jennings, I hold the view I do because I’ve bothered to listen to all his statements rather than just one, and I’ve bothered to fit the events he describes into a realistic time-line.
Can you try to keep questions just a little more focussed please? Some of us don’t suspect every little detail of being a clue to some Grand Plan.
@ Clark November 1, 2017 at 18:57
I was unaware that WTC 7 ‘wrote off’ two other buildings. Can you supply links? And video of WTC 7 toppling to the side? I’m not suggesting it didn’t, but I have never seen such video, and I’ve been immersed in 9/11 Truth since 2004.
Re ‘Boston Brakes’:
‘New Evidence Diana Was Murdered By MI6 ‘:
http://faouzimahbouli.unblog.fr/2013/05/02/new-evidence-diana-was-murdered-by-mi6/
Yes, her limo was clipped by a Fiat Uno, but that was not enough to cause the crash; the (sober) driver, Henri Paul, was also blinded by a military strobe from the pillion passenger on a powerful motorbike, in a belt-and braces hit.
The French authorities would not allow Mercedes to check out the limo, although they had asked to.
Henri Paul was not drunk, which is why the French Judge refused Henri Paul’s parents their request for a sample of his blood to get an independent analysis.
‘Assassination by car accidents’: http://www.whale.to/b/assassination_car.html
DARPA’s admission that modern cars are virtually ALL subject to hacking:
http://www.youtube.com/watchv=XayAGP6re2I&feature=player_embedded
(and yes, Dr. Kathleen Fisher IS a genuine DARPA Program Manager (her profile is on the official DARPA site)), so buy yourself a Morris Minor if you want to feel in charge of your car.
‘The rise of car hacking: In-car technology has led to thieves remotely taking over our vehicles’:
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/motoring/features/the-rise-of- car-hacking-incar-technology-has-led-to-thieves-remotely-taking-over-o ur-vehicles-8825012.html
‘… “an acknowledged expert (Jowenko), when shown the video but not old it was WTC 7, unequivocally said it was a ‘Controlled Demolition”
No one told him about the two trashed buildings. They just showed him some (not all) of the videos, from which you can’t see below about half way down the building. The collapse went further off-centre the further it fell….’
He was not told it was part or the WTC on 9/11 because the questioner did not want any pre-conceived ideas about 9/11 to get in the way, NOT because they were scheming scoundrels.
Whether or not the building tipped over behind the buildings is irrelevant – Jowenko had seen enough of the collapse to make his unqualified judgement.
‘….As for “Boston brakes”, there have been, I believe, two recalls of cars because research teams of white-hat hackers crafted proof-of-concept exploits to interfere with control systems through the vehicles’ Internet connected entertainment systems. This does not constitute a “remote control”. And Diana and Dodi’s car seemed to be swiped by the white Fiat which turned up incinerated with its owner inside some time later, if Unlawful Killing got its facts straight; nothing to do with software exploits – cars were less advanced in those days….’
Au contraire: Boston Brakes was developed in the 1980’s. The Limo they were in had been stolen at gunpoint shortly before, and the control chip stolen (very odd!).
‘Was Diana’s Extremely Convenient Death an Accident?’: http://jahtruth.net/diana.htm
‘…And as for Jennings, I hold the view I do because I’ve bothered to listen to all his statements rather than just one, and I’ve bothered to fit the events he describes into a realistic time-line….’
You have never come up with Barry Jennings contradicting his own statement that both WTC Towers were still standing AFTER the stairs exploded.
‘Areas of Specific Concern in the NIST WTC Reports’:
https://www.ae911truth.org/images/articles/2014/11/twenty-five-points-10-19-14-3.pdf
‘WTC 7 – THE THIRD SKYSCRAPER ………………………………………………………………………………. 2
1. OMISSION OF GIRDER STIFFENERS SHOWN ON FRANKEL DRAWING #9114 ……………………………………….2
2. OMISSION OF THREE LATERAL SUPPORT BEAMS ON THE 13TH FLOOR G3005 BEAM ……………………………2
3. WTC 7 COLLAPSE AT FREE-FALL ACCELERATION IS NOT EXPLAINED…………………………………………………..3
4. VIDEOS OF THE COLLAPSE OF WTC 7 BETRAY NIST’S COMPUTER MODEL…………………………………………..3
5. CLAIMS OF INVESTIGATING CONTROLLED DEMOLITION WITHOUT TESTING FOR EXPLOSIVE RESIDUES….4
6. CHANGES OF STATEMENTS ON COMPOSITE BEAMS AND SHEAR STUD USE BETWEEN DRAFTS …………….5
7. REFUSING OF FOIA REQUESTS …………………………………………………………………………………………………….6
ALL THREE BUILDINGS …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 6
8. NEGLIGENCE IN SALVAGING STEEL ………………………………………………………………………………………………6
9. IGNORING THE RESULTS OF FEMA 403, APPENDIX C ………………………………………………………………………6
10. INVOLVEMENT IN NOT SAVING STEEL FOR INVESTIGATION …………………………………………………………….7
11. FIRE SIMULATIONS AND DURATIONS ARE EXAGGERATED……………………………………………………………….8
12. NO DISCUSSION OF THE MOLTEN METAL FOUND IN THE RUBBLE OF THE THREE COLLAPSED BUILDINGS. 8
13. REFUSAL TO TEST FOR EXPLOSIVE RESIDUE…………………………………………………………………………………..9
14. FAILURE TO FOLLOW STANDARD FIRE INVESTIGATION PROTOCOL ………………………………………………… 10
THE TWIN TOWERS……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 10
15. STRIPPING OF THE FIRE PROOFING IS EXAGGERATED…………………………………………………………………… 10
16. PRE-COLLAPSE STEEL TEMPERATURES ARE EXAGGERATED …………………………………………………………… 11
17. TESTED FLOOR ASSEMBLIES DID NOT FAIL …………………………………………………………………………………. 11
18. INITIATION OF COLLAPSE – “INWARD BOWING” WAS INDUCED ARTIFICIALLY…………………………………. 12
19. COLUMN STRESS DUE TO LOAD REDISTRIBUTION IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO CAUSE FAILURE …………………. 12
20. NO EXPLANATION GIVEN FOR HORIZONTAL PROPAGATION OF COLLAPSE ……………………………………… 12
21. WTC 1 TILT OCCURRED AFTER SYMMETRICAL COLLAPSE FOR AT LEAST TWO STORIES………………………. 13
22. NO JOLT – CONTINUOUS ACCELERATION OF COLLAPSE WAS IGNORED…………………………………………… 14
23. NO PILE DRIVER IS OBSERVED IN VIDEOS …………………………………………………………………………………… 16
24. COLUMN LOADS WERE CALCULATED FOR WORST CASE, NOT ACTUAL IN-SERVICE LOADS…………………. 16
25. MOLTEN METAL OBSERVED POURING OUT OF THE CORNER OF WTC 2 REMAINS UNRESOLVED…………. 16 ‘.
Rudy Giuliani not in his WTC7 office because he was told that the North Tower was in “imminent danger of collapse” !
As Barry Jennings & Michael Hess were trying to exit WTC7, “they were blown back by an explosion beneath them”
https://off-guardian.org/2016/10/10/30549/
If you watch the extract of the NIST FOIA video (reference 3 in the Off-Graun article) you’ll see that what had trashed WTC7’s lobby was all the debris that had crashed into it from the fall of WTC2. Jennings didn’t even see that lobby until he was led out after mid day, by which time the much closer WTC1 had collapsed doing even more severe damage. Sloppy interpretation there by the author of the article; there is no way Jennings could have known had there been any explosion in the lobby, because he was trapped on higher floors for at least an hour afterwards.
Jennings was trapped in the building with Corporate Counsel Michael Hess. They both descended the stairs together when the “explosion” occurred. Their various accounts all differ, from their own accounts and from each others. Truthers tend to prefer accounts that say the incident on the stairs was an explosion, and call Hess a liar working for the conspiracy because he changed his mind later. Quite why Hess would cover up this supposed crime that very nearly killed him is never addressed.
It’s worth watching Jennings’ various interviews because they are confused and contradictory, and he’s clearly interpreting, claiming knowledge of thing he himself states he could not see. He places his ordeal on the stairs before the fall of either WTC2 or WTC1, but this doesn’t seem to make sense because Jennings said he and Hess took the stairs rather than the goods elevator because the power had failed, and the mains power went off when WTC2 fell. But according to both men’s accounts, the “explosion” on the stairs also plunged the two men into darkness; a logical explanation would be that the fall of WTC1 produced the “explosion”, simultaneously killing WTC7’s battery powered emergency lighting system.
This ten minute video arranges events into what seems to be a realistic time-line:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRfctTxaIZY
Hess’s initial news interview in which he speaks of an explosion is here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6e3K9jcPdXc
@ Clark November 1, 2017 at 18:57
I was unaware that WTC 7 ‘wrote off’ two other buildings. Can you supply links? And video of WTC 7 toppling to the side? I’m not suggesting it didn’t, but I have never seen such video, and I’ve been immersed in 9/11 Truth since 2004.
Re ‘Boston Brakes’:
‘New Evidence Diana Was Murdered By MI6 ‘:
http://faouzimahbouli.unblog.fr/2013/05/02/new-evidence-diana-was-murdered-by-mi6/
Yes, her limo was clipped by a Fiat Uno, but that was not enough to cause the crash; the (sober) driver, Henri Paul, was also blinded by a military strobe from the pillion passenger on a powerful motorbike, in a belt-and braces hit.
The French authorities would not allow Mercedes to check out the limo, although they had asked to.
Henri Paul was not drunk, which is why the French Judge refused Henri Paul’s parents their request for a sample of his blood to get an independent analysis.
‘Assassination by car accidents’: http://www.whale.to/b/assassination_car.html
DARPA’s admission that modern cars are virtually ALL subject to hacking:
http://www.youtube.com/watchv=XayAGP6re2I&feature=player_embedded
(and yes, Dr. Kathleen Fisher IS a genuine DARPA Program Manager (her profile is on the official DARPA site)), so buy yourself a Morris Minor if you want to feel in charge of your car.
‘The rise of car hacking: In-car technology has led to thieves remotely taking over our vehicles’:
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/motoring/features/the-rise-of- car-hacking-incar-technology-has-led-to-thieves-remotely-taking-over-o ur-vehicles-8825012.html
‘… “an acknowledged expert (Jowenko), when shown the video but not old it was WTC 7, unequivocally said it was a ‘Controlled Demolition”
No one told him about the two trashed buildings. They just showed him some (not all) of the videos, from which you can’t see below about half way down the building. The collapse went further off-centre the further it fell….’
He was not told it was part or the WTC on 9/11 because the questioner did not want any pre-conceived ideas about 9/11 to get in the way, NOT because they were scheming scoundrels.
Whether or not the building tipped over behind the buildings is irrelevant – Jowenko had seen enough of the collapse to make his unqualified judgement.
‘….As for “Boston brakes”, there have been, I believe, two recalls of cars because research teams of white-hat hackers crafted proof-of-concept exploits to interfere with control systems through the vehicles’ Internet connected entertainment systems. This does not constitute a “remote control”. And Diana and Dodi’s car seemed to be swiped by the white Fiat which turned up incinerated with its owner inside some time later, if Unlawful Killing got its facts straight; nothing to do with software exploits – cars were less advanced in those days….’
Au contraire: Boston Brakes was developed in the 1980’s. The Limo they were in had been stolen at gunpoint shortly before, and the control chip stolen (very odd!).
‘Was Diana’s Extremely Convenient Death an Accident?’: http://jahtruth.net/diana.htm
‘…And as for Jennings, I hold the view I do because I’ve bothered to listen to all his statements rather than just one, and I’ve bothered to fit the events he describes into a realistic time-line….’
You have never come up with Barry Jennings contradicting his own statement that both WTC Towers were still standing AFTER the stairs exploded.
@ Clark November 1, 2017 at 22:51
‘The Collapse of WTC 7 and the Mysterious Death of Barry Jennings’:
http://www.mujahidkamran.com/articles.php?id=45
A very good article, with info I was unaware of. As for your video with its’ ‘estimated’ timeline –
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRfctTxaIZY ,it knocks it for six:
‘..While the 9/11 Commission ignored WTC 7 altogether in its repor, NIST (National Institute of Safety Technology) did file several reports on their studies of the collapse of WTC 7. While NIST went to lengths in its tortuous analyses to state that it found no evidence of a demolition job in WTC 7, it was not honest in its study because it entirely ignored testimony of witnesses from both the inside and outside of WTC 7. With regard to the Twin Towers both the NIST as well as the 9/11 Commission had ignored witness testimony because eye witnesses to the event, numerous survivors from within the buildings, as well as those who watched things from very close quarters, stated unambiguously and consistently that bombs kept going off in all buildings.
Any person who becomes aware of this casting aside of highly credible and mutually consistent eyewitness testimony finds it very intriguing. The only possible reason that such testimony was ignored is simple: such testimony means that the buildings were demolished from the inside and that means that the official story about terrorists having brought down the buildings is false. It would then take very little time for the people of the U.S. to find out who the real perpetrators were. That, however, must be stalled at all costs because it would lead the public directly to the real criminals, criminals ensconced and embedded deeply in the power structure of the United States of America….’
‘…In his book dealing exclusively with the mystery of WTC 7 collapse, David Ray Griffin has devoted an entire chapter to disregarding of the testimonial evidence by NIST. He quotes a journalist, Peter Demarco of the New York Daily News [2]:
There was a rumble. The building’s top row of windows popped out. Then all the windows of the 39th floor popped out. Then the thirty eighth floor. Pop! Pop! Pop! was all you heard until the building sunk into a rising cloud of gray.
A similar testimony was given by an unnamed medical student on a recorded video. This has been transcribed by Griffin [3]:
We heard this sound like a clap of thunder …Turned around – we were shocked …It looked like …. there was a shockwave ripping through the building and the windows all busted out …. About a second later the bottom floor caved out and the building followed after that….’
‘…In addition to witnesses who watched the collapse from outside there were a couple of witnesses who were trapped inside the building on that fateful day. Both the trapped witnesses were rescued by fire fighters. One of these individuals was Michael Hess, a counsel to the New York City Corporation at that time, and a close friend of Rudy Guiliani.
In a live interview that started at 11.57 AM on 9/11, he described his experience. Since the interview was given just a few blocks from the WTC complex he must have been rescued shortly before. Griffin quotes from his interview [4]:
I was up in the emergency management center [of WTC 7] on the twenty third floor, when all the power went out in the building, another gentleman and I walked down to the eighth floor where there was an explosion} [5] and we were trapped on the eighth floor with smoke, thick smoke, all around us for about an hour and a half. But the New York Fire Department … just came and got us out. [Although Hess said they had “walked down to the eighth floor,” they actually walked down to the sixth floor, then went back up to the eighth floor after the explosion]….’
Hess was Giuliani’s Chief Lawyer; even he admitted ‘explosions’. As Chief Lawyer to a big-time crook, he was also very likely to be a crook himself. That’s why he ofetn doesn’t back up Barry Jennings’ testimony, and why he stays shtumn even after his brush with death; I’m sure he has been suitably rewarded for his ‘Omerta’.
‘…The other witness trapped along with Hess was Barry Jennings, Deputy Director of Emergency Services Department for the NY City Housing Authority. Apparently Jennings and Hess arrived at WTC 7 after the first plane had hit the North Tower (8:46 AM) but before the second plane hit the South Tower (9:03 AM). He had been directed to report at the 23rd floor of WTC 7 where the emergency command center of the Office of Emergency Management was located. He expected to meet Guiliani there. As Hess had stated they planned to sit with Guiliani and “strategize” (according to Hess). When Hess and Jennings, who had not known each other previously, got to the 23rd floor what did they find? Jennings stated [6]:
We noticed that everybody was gone. I saw coffee that was on the desks still, smoke was still coming off the coffee. I saw half-eaten sandwiches. Only me and Mr. Hess were up there. And after I called several individuals, one individual told me to leave and to leave right away….’
If this supposition is correct, Jennings and Hess were in WTC 7 before 9.03 am , well before WTC 2 collapsed.
So Barry Jennings testimony of seeing both Towers still standing AFTER the stairs blew up under them is perfectly feasible.
‘…Why had everybody left in a hurry? Why were they asked to leave immediately? And who was or were the individuals who asked them to leave? Did these individuals know something about what was going to happen to WTC 7? Jennings stated that the elevator was not working. Since they wanted to leave in a hurry, so instead of taking a step at a time, he began jumping the landings. When they got to the 6th floor an explosion below blew them off and the landing beneath them gave way. They had to retreat to the 8th floor. It is important to emphasize that in every interview that he gave Jennings insisted that it was an explosion and that the explosion took place below them. He further stated [7]:
I was trapped in there several hours. I was trapped in there when both buildings came down. The firefighters came …And then they ran away. See, I didn’t know what was going on. That’s when the first tower fell. When they started running the first tower was coming down. Then I saw them come back. Now I saw them come back with more concern on their faces. Instead, they ran away again: the second tower fell. So as they turned and ran the second time, the guy said, “Don’t worry, we’ll be back for you.” And they did come back….’
There it is again: the fire fighters who came to rescue them ran away (the first time) because WTC 2 collapsed; then they returned, and again run away as the WTC 1 collapsed, but said they would be back.
‘…McMahon, JD, LLM states:
Among all the highly credible video and forensic evidence indicating that WTC Building 7 was brought down by explosive controlled demolition on September 11, 2001, the accounts of explosions related by eyewitness Barry Jennings are particularly persuasive.
Barry Jennings also stated something even more frightening than the destruction of the WTC 7 lobby by bombs. Griffin quotes him [9]:
The firefighter that took us down kept saying, “Don’t look down.” I asked “Why?” And, he said. “Do not look down.” We were stepping over people, and you know you can feel when you’re stepping over people….’
‘…The Mysterious Death of Jennings
The mysteries of 9/11 are never ending. Two days before the final NIST report on WTC 7 Barry Jennings died mysteriously at age 53. Bryan Jennings was a most valuable witness to the bomb explosions inside WTC 7, to the destruction of the lobby by these bombs, to the dead bodies over which he walked. His testimony, if brought to public, would utterly destroy the official story. He was a man who knew too much through no fault of his.
On September 16, 2008 Aaron Dykes wrote [10]:
NYC Housing Authority spokesman Howard Marder has now officially confirmed that Barry Jennings indeed passed away approximately a month ago after several days in the hospital, matching confirmations from several other employees at the Housing Authority. Marder commented that Jennings was a great man, well liked by everyone at the Housing Authority, and that he would be missed. No other details were available.
Barry Jennings, a key 9/11 eyewitness who was an emergency coordinator for the New York Housing Authority, has passed away at age 53 from circumstances not yet disclosed.
A spokesperson for the Housing Authority has now confirmed his death, after weeks of rumors circulating online, but refused to give any further details. Several other individuals at the Housing Authority also confirmed that they knew Barry Jennings, and that indeed he had passed away about a month ago. No other details were available.
This office has not yet been able to contact anyone in the Jennings family and the official cause of death is not yet known, but online comments have reported the date of death as August 19, 2008.
It is very unusual that a prominent – and controversial- 9/11 witness would die only days before the release of NIST’s report on WTC 7index{WTC 7} and shortly after a firestorm erupted over his testimony that he heard explosions inside the building prior to collapse of either tower and that there were dead bodies in the building’s blown-out lobby.
It is important to point out that although Jennings had given an interview for the internet documentary Loose Change Final Cut his interview had to be omitted from the film at the last moment because he had expressed a fear of losing his job. He also feared for his family. It was only when he appeared on a BBC interview and BBC gave the impression that Jennings had retracted his testimony in Loose Change that the producers released his interview in order to prove their credibility. He died shortly afterwards. His fears were not unjustified. It appears that the BBC smearing of Jennings his death and the release of the NIST report took place within a few weeks time and therefore these things are highly unlikely to be coincidental.
The Barry Jennings interview reveals that Jennings was absolutely clear that the official explanation that WTC 7 came down because of debris falling on it from the Twin Towers or due to fuel oil tank (that fed the generators) was unacceptable. It is important to note that in his interview with Loose Change that he worked for an agency: “I was there as part of one of the agencies which I can’t name.” Since the agency he worked for was a secret agency his testimony becomes all the more important. People working for agencies are taught to observe things carefully and to keep quiet. Jennings did not keep quiet…..’
‘….Further, as Jack Blood wrote in April 2009 [12]:
It seems that Dylan had hired a private investigator to look into Jennings’ death which remains shrouded in mystery. His motive was simply to bring some closure to the life of Barry Jennings, and in doing so to honor the memory of this brave American. The Investigator ended up referring the case to Law enforcement before refunding his pay, and told Dylan never to contact him again. Very unusual to say the least. Dylan also paid a visit to the Jennings home. He found it vacant and for sale.
Personally, something is really beginning to stink here. Why would a highly paid PI refuse to continue his investigation? Why did he refer the matter to police? He is not talking. What is he afraid of. Was he warned to cease and desist? If so by whom?
These are some of the new questions revolving around the Jennings case.
In every major cover up from the JFK assassination to Iran Contra, we can see one common thread. The untimely death of eyewitnesses. Barry Jennings was not only an important and most credible eyewitness, but he openly refuted much of the government, and media version of events. He was a liability.’
Yes, indeed, Barry Jennings was a liability as was Danny Jowenko:
‘Phone Call With Danny Jowenko- Died 3 days latter After PressTv interview’: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtbRd6gzFWk
TL,DR
As Einstein said, one would have been enough.
Try it, Paul. Instead of forever building a case by pushing every little scrap you can find toward your preferred conclusion, try actually collating evidence with an open mind. Develop and refine your time-line by working through it and checking if it is actually possible.
But I know you won’t. You prefer your personal fantasies to the great work which is reality.
You already have a big clue:
– “I was unaware that WTC 7 ‘wrote off’ two other buildings. Can you supply links? And video of WTC 7 toppling to the side? I’m not suggesting it didn’t, but I have never seen such video, and I’ve been immersed in 9/11 Truth since 2004”
So there is bias in your sources. One of the buildings was Fiterman Hall, the other was the Verizon building. WTC7’s collapse was remarkably symmetrical, but it was far from perfect. But if you haven’t found that in your thirteen years of looking, you must need to change the way you look.
@ Clark November 2, 2017 at 10:51
I was fully aware that other buildings were damaged on 9/11, it’s just that your implication was that WTC 7 had toppled into them, not that they had sustained substantial damage, OSTENSIBLY from the collapse.
Still no evidence of WTC 7 ‘toppling into them’ (I know you did not state that, but in the context of your comment that was the implication which I took).
The whole point of your comment was based on WTC 7 toppling substantially – where is the evidence?
I am aware a huge (300-odd ton, if I remember correctly – anyhow, very large) section of steel was ejected hundreds of feet into a building across the way from one of the Twin Towers; but it was ‘ejected’, the Tower didn’t crash into it.
He goes on forever, but I agree with him most of the time, and bought his book. He is quite obviously far more intelligent than me, and can write so exceedingly well, that he doesn’t even bother correcting his own typos in the book he published. What makes me chuffed is that it only took me 18 months – to get 9/11..Just before I joined over 1 Million People Marching against The Iraq War in 2003 in London.
The Saker believed the Official US Government story of 9/11 till about 2008 – maybe even later…But he has got it now. I like people who change their mind – based on a thorough review of all the available evidence. It helps if you did Physics & Maths at School & Psychology in an attempt to understand Girls.
https://thesaker.is/the-911-truth-movement-15-years-later-where-do-we-stand/
Extract
“To make a long story short, NIST, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, has been forced to admit that for 2.25 seconds WTC7 (which, by the way, was not hit by any aircraft on that day), was collapsing a free-fall acceleration. This is only possible if 8 floors of this huge buildings were removed instantly and symmetrically. And that, my friends, is only doable by the use of carefully placed explosives.”
Tony
Tony, I’ll bet you a festival ticket I know this stuff better than you do. All this talk of collapsing buildings is a distraction, and the Saker is manipulating his readers; he can’t produce a Russian university nor a Russian engineer that supports demolition of the Twin Towers, whereas there ARE Russian papers that accept their progressive collapse.
Nothing suspicious about the Twin Tower collapses, once you know the design and the collapse sequence it all makes sense. I’ll do some physics with you if you like. Have you read my description of the collapse sequence? I have been through it more times than I can remember, but the demolition theorists always get really upset and start insulting me. One of them can do the maths but insists on quoting what we did wrong. The other just refuses to try and posts things about beer cans that aren’t relevant or appropriate.
Building 7 is weird, weird, weird. Before you assume “controlled demolition” (a misnomer at best), first find out if known controlled demolitions fall at g – they generally don’t, I believe, because the explosives just disrupt the geometry to initiate collapse and the weight breaks the structural members apart against each other and the ground, absorbing energy.
Second, check Chandler’s graph; it’s a nice smooth curve that exceeds g briefly. Remember, free fall only applies if no force other than gravity is acting, ie. if the body is not touching any other object (ignoring air). But we have no right to assume that at all; we can’t see inside WTC7’s perimeter, and we know the bottom edge must have been impacting the ground.
Chandler’s smooth curve suggests whiplash; the core must have gone down, and then the horizontal beams “whipped” the outside down after it; flex and elasticity. That’s the only way I can think that the perimeter’s descent could have exceeded g. Damned symmetrical, nonetheless. Weird, weird weird.
I don’t touch the WTC7 maths; too complicated, let the professionals handle it. The Twin Towers are easy if you want to have a go.
And I’ll tell you what, the US is likely losing out over this. The Saker is a political polemicist, but no Russian university supports Twin Tower demolition theory. But in the US, the top bod of mechanical engineering is Bazant, and his crush-down-crush-up theory grossly contradicts observation, both of the collapses and the debris. NIST seem to have tailored their reports to suit political pressure (they’re part of the Department of Commerce), some of their work is notably sloppy in various areas. So those are your top two authorities in the States, and they’re both denying their own error and damaging the global reputation of US engineering.
New unseen 911 Pentagon photos released;
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/osama-bin-laden-files-charlie-bit-my-finger-911-weirdest-discoveries-a8032396.html#gallery
Two things interested my in the article’s “Read More” panel:
– Bin Laden could ‘absolutely’ have been captured alive, says commander
– Osama bin Laden’s son vows revenge on the west for killing his father
The attack on a family home was disgusting in itself – they call it a “compound”, of course, but a family lived there. The attack clearly served theatrical propaganda purposes, but could be seen more as part of a cover-up and maintaining the status quo. Assuming that really was Osama bin Laden, all his potential testimony was denied to the world. And making him a martyr seems to have produced a successor.
And note that US commercial interest trumps public interest, as always:
– “[Some] Materials that still have not been released are being withheld because they […] are protected by copyright”
@ Clark November 2, 2017 at 11:46
‘…Assuming that really was Osama bin Laden, all his potential testimony was denied to the world. And making him a martyr seems to have produced a successor.’
The first point is making a tremendous assumption, and the second suits the PTB down to the ground.
Boogeymen are a great boon to the never-planned-to-end ‘War on Terror’ (did I hear a chuckle from Nick Rockefeller there?).Now I know you don’t like ‘Veterans Today’, but I’ll just provide this link as it has an alleged picture of the dead OBL, and also an old picture of the real OBL. It is plain as a pikestaff that the ‘dead’ picture was photoshopped from the genuine one:
https://www.veteranstoday.com/2017/10/30/seal6/