The 9/11 Post 11807

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

11,807 thoughts on “The 9/11 Post

1 124 125 126 127 128 134
  • Paul Barbara

    This video series (8 parts) should be seen by all 9/11 Truthers, if they have not seen it before.
    I don’t agree with all of it, but there is some extremely good stuff in it, particularly part 06 ‘What Planes?’:

    At 10.06/10.07/10.08 you can see a part of Perdue’s supposedly architecturally accurate plane simulation, where a part of their ‘plane’ cuts right through a floor beam/assembly; after slicing through the beam, the beam magically heals itself. Some accurate simulation!
    Then there’s the missing wake vortices of the ‘plane’ after it ‘enters’ the Tower – no wake vortices, no plane.
    I recommend anyone who hasn’t seen PsyOpera to watch it – there is, at the very least, a lot of food for thought.

    This is the link for anyone who wants to go through all parts (though part one doesn’t play):

    Also, a Dr. Ed Wood was mentioned in the video, re radiation cancers from 9/11. Here’s an article I found:
    ‘One Man Asks Why Was Tritium Found At 9/11 Ground Zero’:
    That video has been removed, but here is a short article on micro-nukes:
    ‘For 25 Years, U.S. Special Forces Carried Miniature Nukes on Their Backs’:

    • Paul Barbara

      @ glenn_nl November 6, 2017 at 12:35
      I linked the article as a strong indication that mini-nukes have existed for a long time. They would obliterate a battlefield, as that was their purpose. Horses for courses.
      But modern nukes have variable, dialable yields; clearly if they were used on the WTC buildings, they would have been of just sufficient yield to attain the perps purposes.
      If you watch, for instance, ‘PsyOpera’ (although I have linked to a still on here before) you would see that the rock beneath the towers has been melted, and in a circular fashion. Hardly the kind of geological foundation that anyone would build giant high-rises on, IF the ground had been like that when the WTC buildings were first erected.

      • Clark

        ” the rock beneath the towers has been melted, and in a circular fashion. Hardly the kind of geological foundation that anyone would build giant high-rises on, IF the ground had been like that when the WTC buildings were first erected.”

        Is that what sources from the academic and professional geological community tell us? Or are those communities as corrupt and complacent as John Goss claims the physics and engineering communities are?

        I’d like an answer please, Paul.

      • glenn_nl

        Paul – did you read the bit about irradiating much of the surrounding area? Perhaps some radiation would be found at “ground zero” – wouldn’t be surprising, actually, because jumbos carry large weights in their tail to achieve balance. Since space is at a premium, that mass is in the form of uranium. Not particularly radioactive, but certainly enough to be detected.

        An atomic bomb would give rise to huge amounts of radiation sickness for a large area around, including wherever the wind blew it. No such effects have been observed.

        A weapon that “obliterates a battlefield” is hardly suitable for the precision demolition that you claim, is it?

    • Clark

      I too have wondered about the high tritium concentrations. I have seen it explained as releases from night-sights and emergency access signs that glow without external power, and a counter-argument that such high concentrations cannot be accounted for that way. My knowledge is insufficient to assess this, but I bear it in mind.

      I have also wondered about a nuclear element to 9/11. Clearly the Twin Towers’ progressive collapses weren’t caused by nukes; the buried nukes argument has no credibility (I’ll expound if I must, I suppose). But there are other possibilities. Sibel Edmonds, of course, revealed the nuclear trafficking dimension of the ATC American Turkish Council. There was a significant increase in thyroid and other cancers in survivors from the WTC site. A “dirty bomb” or deliberate contamination are possibilities, and of course the authorities would attempt to cover up. The next step would be to check the USGS dust sample analysis for nuclear-related elements and reaction product isotopes.

      Ted Taylor developed the “mini nukes” for the US. His book The Curve of Binding Energy (my thanks go to Squonk) is fascinating; he makes it very clear that illicitly obtaining nuclear materials including plutonium in quantities to fabricate a nuclear weapon would be quite easy for any party with sufficient determination. Again, the corporate culture of the US is the underlying problem; handling of such materials is outsourced to companies that implement little security in order to save money. At one site all that would have been needed was wire-cutters and a substantial hammer. At another, turning up in a convincing looking van and clothing would enable a consignment to driven away like a regular collection before routine checks could reveal the theft.

      At the risk of sounding boring, it is these real and present dangers that get overlooked in the rush to sensationalise stories, such as Twin Tower demolition theory obscuring genuine but little known concerns of lightweight skyscraper construction. Even if such sensationalism was being seeded deliberately by the authorities as “cover”, it could not be more effective than our very own rumour machine.

      • Kempe

        The tritium concentrations weren’t very high, not enough to exceed health standards and emergency signs etc seem to be the most likely source.

        The B54 device used the same W54 warhead as was used in the Davy Crocket missile, lowest yield possible was equivalent to 10 tonnes TNT which is as small as is possible with an atomic weapon. In tests this weapon flattened an area the size of two city blocks, 10 tonnes of TNT would produce a shock roughly equivalent to 4.0 on the Richter scale (Chernobyl registered 3.97 and was reckoned equivalent to 9.5 tonnes) yet the biggest shocks shown on the record for 9/11 were R2.1 and R2.3.

        I’ve yet to see a satisfactory explanation of how a bomb exploding in the basement of a building can cause it to collapse from the top down either.

    • glenn_nl

      How come my reply to this got deleted – JHC, are we supposed to be discussing in terms that wouldn’t alarm the old ladies in Sunday School or something?

      If we’re not allowed to have any sort of realistic discussion here, this is an utter waste of time. Screw it, I’ve had enough of this over-zealous “miss-manners” standard of moderation.

        • glenn_nl

          Thing is, Clark, there was nothing in it that could possibly have been offensive. No name-calling, yah-boo-ing, nothing. Just asking if Paul had bothered reading his reference, because it described how a mini-nike would “obliterate a battlefield” (which would be a strange way of instigating a controlled demolition from the top-down), and also that the entire area would have been irradiated. The entire area was not irradiated. Ergo, there could not have been mini-nukes used to destroy the twin towers.

          Delete! Delete!

          • Paul Barbara

            @ glenn_nl November 7, 2017 at 08:48
            Yeh; my inoffensive reply was deleted as well.
            Essence: the back-pack nukes were designed to do what they did. Nowadays, things have progressed, and we have dialable yields, to suit the perp’s purposes.

          • glenn_nl

            Yes Paul, an entirely agreeable conversation, gone because it offended the rather over-delicate sensibilities not of any casual reader, not of the participants, but of some particularly skittish moderator!

  • Dave

    The Good Health feature in today’s Daily Mail shows a man laying on the ground, without shoes, with legs bent and hips and an arm raised, being assisted by his wife, after being hit by a speeding vehicle in the Westminster Bridge attack. The article includes a curious profile and history of treatment, but the position of the body shown seems improbable in view of the list of injuries inflicted. Can anyone explain this anomaly?

      • Dave

        Helping to create and sustain the 9/11 thread sounds praiseworthy, but saying he is now tormented by this and would like to kill Frankenstein shows an ulterior motive for the help given! For example, was arguing for a separate thread a means to remove very topical comments from other threads to limit the audience for the truth, by creating a leper thread? And were numerous posts to keep the comments section live, intended to create a fractious thread and a reason to delete it entirely, as he now claims is on his mind. I mean if the thread remains up, but with no new comments, would that necessarily be a bad thing, as there is already plenty of information on the thread to satisfy any open mind. Whereas removing the thread entirely would certainly suite the perpetrators interests.

        Perhaps I am being unfair, but you do wonder when the person involved can audaciously repeat the towers came down due to spontaneous combustion!!!

        • Clark

          I told you what upsets me about this thread. You’re telling me I’m lying about my own motives. I’ll tell you again. I object to the constant and reflexive verbal bullying of anyone who challenges Truther mythology, as you have just done to me in your comment.

          Following your example I could equally claim that you are pushing Twin Tower demolition theory to protect the New York Mafia who built the Twin Towers with vital components missing, thus killing the occupants on 9/11 just to pocket a few bucks. Your friend Mayor Giuliani cleared the site quickly to destroy the evidence of negligent construction, to protect you and the rest of the criminal mob. Or I could smear you as being in the pay of Saudi Arabia or al Qaeda. Either would make as much sense as what you write.

          It’s not my fault that you can’t understand the collapse sequence as I have described it. Arguments from personal incredulity convince only the feeble minded, eg. “I can’t believe ancient people could build Stonehenge so space aliens must have done it”.

          • Dave

            There are a range of interests who colluded with 9/11, its a big subject with many sub-plots and you have made some good observations, but arguing black is white about the destruction of the twin towers and black is grey regarding WT7 is very wearing. I mean even a flimsy tower doesn’t fall, let alone disintegrate, in seconds!

          • Clark

            Dave, I wondered about the collapses of the Twin Towers for literally years. I feel silly about that now. But my problem was Chandler’s paper “Downward Acceleration of WTC1”, available in various versions from many sources; here’s one:


            It presented me with a contradiction. Its physics is obviously valid in some sense; very simple stuff. But buildings can collapse, the most obvious examples being vérinage demolitions we see in videos:


            The trouble is, everything in Chandler’s simple paper is exactly the same as in the vérinage videos; a lower, undamaged block that has supported an upper block for years and years, until suddenly, after deliberate damage to the slice between them, the upper block accelerates down through the lower one. So what’s going on?

            The answer came to me after I understood how the Twin Towers worked; the vertical columns bear all the weight, supporting all the horizontal floors, which are kept relatively light by only being strong enough to support their contents. What happens if those columns get out of line? Compare the diagram on page 4 of Chandler with the following:


            Each floor assembly can only support about, say, 1/30th as much as the columns can (represented by the sizes of my red arrows), but suddenly just one of them is being asked to support the entire weight of of the block above; it’s not going to hold. It’s going at least be broken away from the columns, and probably get smashed to bits. Either way, it starts to fall along with the upper block, so the next floor assembly down has even more weight land on it, so the collapse will accelerate.

            But Chandler’s paper is obviously valid in some sense, so what does it apply to? I’ll come back to that and Building 7 later.

          • Clark

            Regarding Building 7, of course its collapse looked almost identical to a typical controlled demolition, with a few notable differences – the building had been recently damaged and was on fire, it was much taller than any building ever openly demolished, and roof-line acceleration achieved or even exceeded g, which I think we’ll find is not typical at all if we bother to check, despite Truther memes.

            Craig’s remarks about the near impossibility of rigging a building with explosives while it is occupied and indeed very busy are as relevant as ever. From a conspiracy point of view, far too much scope for a fuck-up or exposure; “hey, what’s this on these columns in the basement?”

            Circumstantial evidence has been accumulating that WTC7’s destruction was ordered after chaos broke out in New York. Silverstein’s “pull it” remark, though ambiguous, certainly refers to safety concerns and fire-fighters. There’s the clip of John Kerry’s suspicion that WTC7 could have been brought down for safety reasons. There’s the ABC News piece (I think) about Silverstein desperately making ‘phone calls, trying to arrange a demolition (totally unnecessary if it had already been rigged). There’s the recent link (from Macky?) which claimed that Silverstein unambiguously said it was demolished in an interview no one has managed to find a copy of.

            Then there are the fire-fighters. There is the “that building’s about to blow up” video. There is the paramedic who claims to have witnessed a countdown. There is the fire-fighter interviewed who said they “expected it to come down, or be brought down”. There are the reports that an instrument called a “transit” was installed to measure the deformation of WTC7, suggesting the authorities wanted an indication of its instability (personnel in the basement, maybe?).

            Then there are my own speculations. Fire-fighters’ testimonies show that the fire-fighters were threatening to ignore the exclusion zone, wishing to press on with the search for colleagues trapped in the debris from the Twin Towers. And then there’s this guy, starting at fifteen seconds in; not dusty, he says “don’t follow me, dude. Please go“:


            His jacket is marked ATF – Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, the body that licenses demolitions in the US. He’s heading towards the entrance of WTC7 between the collapses of the Twin Towers.

            All in all, the demolition of WTC7 isn’t very well hidden at all, is it?

            And yet we have absolutely no evidence at all of this nature regarding alleged demolition of the Twin Towers, unless you count the shady State Department whisperer to Susan Lindauer, which for me, considering the original source (ie. not Lindauer), is the exception that proves the rule (see below).

            But all the above point to demolition materials being rigged after the disaster was in progress.

            But why keep it secret? And here I lapse from the painstaking accumulation of verifiable evidence into conspiracy-theorist mode; is it remotely possible that the post-disaster demolition of WTC7 was kept secret precisely to seed suspicion that the Twin Towers were explosively demolished, too? To get those with suspicious minds barking completely up the wrong tree, to throw a massive schism between the original truth movement and the international community of physicists, engineers and construction professionals? Precisely to make it possible to dismiss the yet to be born truth movement as “conspiracy theorists”? Am I being too suspicious, or not suspicious enough?

            Now what about cover-ups? Which of the following would people including fire-fighters cooperate with? (1) The two demolitions of the Twin Tower that would absolutely have to have been pre-rigged and which killed thousands of New Yorkers including hundreds of fire-fighters, or (2) the demolition of WTC7, rigged after the disaster had started, which killed no one and was done to help the fire-fighters look for their injured colleagues?

            For now, I rest my case.

          • Clark

            Finally, I left an open question:

            “Chandler’s paper is obviously valid in some sense, so what does it apply to?”

            Chandler’s paper challenges Bazant’s “pile driver” or “crush down then crush up” theory, as relied upon (rather offhandedly) by NIST. Chandler’s paper challenges a theory. It does NOT challenge the actual collapse mechanism; it merely knocks down a straw man.

            That leads to a further question of why a top academic like Bazant should stubbornly insist on a theory that both contradicts observation, and apparently falls to an argument as simple as Chandler’s? Bazant should be knocked off his 9/11 perch by the academic community, but he hasn’t been. His Wikipedia page has some interesting bits, too:

            “This article has multiple issues.
            – This biography of a living person needs additional citations for verification.
            – This article is an autobiography or has been extensively edited by the subject or by someone connected to the subject.”

            And on the article’s Talk page:

            “This article is designed to prop Bazant up, is poorly cited and referenced, and is full of conjecture regarding what he has ‘proven’. Bazant’s writings on 911 are probably the single most significant thing he has ever done, yet they are conspicuously absent”

            Looking at the article History, in March 2017 Bazant made multiple edits to his own Wikipedia article, until another editor undid them all under “Conflict of Interest”, after which Bazant deleted his Wikipedia editor’s account! He never edited any other article. Like so many others, he probably has no idea about the way Wikipedia works, and stormed off in a huff.

  • J

    The draft report of the University of Alaska Fairbanks into the collapse of building seven is open for public consultation. The report undertaken by Dr. J Leroy Hulsey and two PHD students has been modelling the collapse for two years and demonstrates conclusively several areas where the NIST report fails to include the actual structural data known to be part of the fabric of the building. Unsurprisingly the omissions highlighted by this report inevitably lead to different conclusions. That the structure absolutely did not fail as described by NIST (who were in effect modelling a different building.)

    This page has a lengthy video presentation of the preliminary findings now open for peer review:

  • Peter Beswick

    Despite what others (other than Craig) might think the future of this thread and other threads are not in their hands indeed the existence of the blog is in grave danger disappearing forever.
    If Craig loses and he continues with the blog (inadvisably in my opinion) there is a danger he/ it will be targeted again until it (or he) goes out of business.
    Another libel action? Perhaps! And it does not have to be Craig as the de facto publisher of the offending comment it could be an innocuous / unguarded suggestion made by a careless contributor that initiates another onslaught.
    And even if Craig wins, efforts might be redoubled to silence him.
    Of course the archives can be backed up but if they are not easily available to future researchers their worth becomes questionable.
    Thinking hats on. New blog offshore? Person(s) in charge unidentifiable? Don’t know!
    The reason I am thinking this way is I was given honest and genuine criticism the other day, when I stated I didn’t need to persuade others that there were facts supporting my postulations but not theirs. I was accused of being selfish, I parried the suggestion.
    On reflection it was however true. There are some who will not be convinced of anything but their own view, full stop, that is also true. But there are those that have read an official explanation, accept it at face value but have doubts and make efforts to verify.
    On the most important matters it is essential that there are resources available for those people to begin or augment verification research.
    The 9/11 thread is one such resource. There are absolute nuggets of gold in there albeit liberally camouflaged by a mountain of horse shit.
    In the past two weeks (that’s how long my research into 9/11 has endured) I am now in no doubt that 9/11 was permitted and covered up from within the US and I have the abilities to distill that evidence in a manner that if it doesn’t convince it may encourage individual verification of my arguments.
    That task will take some hours, a few pages (4 of 5 of A4 perhaps) to present the official story’s stumbling blocks. If it is all to disappear I think, can I be arsed?
    And last night the $64k question presented me with an answer. How could so many people be involved in the original crime and thousands more be involved in the multifarious crimes of cover up with a clear conscience……… and get away with it?
    The answer to that is on very similar lines to the Dr David Kelly Mystery, how could you get Ministers, Senior Civil Servants, a Judge, the Police and forensic teams, to go along with a lie and keep it secret. The answer to that was you tell them another lie, a very plausible lie and tell them that that information is of the very highest level of National Security, a breach of which would punishable by a more serious consequence than jail.
    You get a bunch of jerks to believe guff, coerce them into doing what they believe is their duty and threaten them or their love ones with death / penury / the mad house if they ever blab.
    In the event I believe the 9/11 cancer is about to burst anyway but the Murray blog is about more than that and efforts should be made to devise not just contingency but for a more secure future for its existence.

    The answer to the $64k question to follow

    • Macky

      @Peter, I’m obviously glad that my “polite” disagreement has made you reconsider, and although I didn’t actually call you “selfish”, it was an unavoidable inference in view of the point being discussed.

      I agree that this 911 Thread, and indeed for that matter, most of the threads on this Blog, are indeed invaluable resources, both for the informed analysis, and important links, that are contained, hidden of course among all the less useful comments. However I regret to inform you that I don’t believe Craig is of the same opinion, based on four facts;

      1) Over the years he has made the point several times, that according to the Blog statistics, his Posts are read by all the visitors to the Blog, whereas only a minority bothered to read the below-the-line comments.

      2) Whenever there were Moderating issues, he’s stated that perhaps the answer would be the closing down of comments altogether.

      3) I’m sorry to say he has a rather dismissive attitude & lack of concern about the btl-comments, despite the fact that many of those that post here have been following loyally this Blog for many years. This cavalier attitude is best illustrated when he pulled/deleted two whole successive threads, each of many pages long, with a combined excess of over one thousand comments, (many with very good arguments & analysis, along with many important links), on the stated explanation that a regular pro-Israel supporter had complained about an alleged Anti-Semitic comment; nevermind that this Pro-Israeli supporter has a long history of smearing people as anti-Semitic on the slightest pretext, Craig actually stated that he couldn’t be bothered to find the alleged anti-Semitic, so he deleted two whole threads instead ! This was quite a while ago, but he has pulled several threads since, some quite recently, and to be frank, I believe he does it when his Blog Post pov is being strongly opposed/pulled-apart.

      4) He leads from the top by example, and has given the Mods the license not to just delete an individual offending comment, but all replies branching off from it, regardless. I can understand the argument that it’s time consuming to delete/edit single lines in a comment Post, but if the btl comments were valued or respected, only the offending Post would be removed, and not all the attached replies, which often don’t even refer to the original offending Post.

      So, yes this Blog’s’ btl comments are an amazing resource, but sorry to say that those in control, don’t appear to see it that way.

      • Peter Beswick


        My view is that this thread is not a good fit with Craig’s view of the world, he can be quite blinkered at times and make assumptions that are irrational. Traits found in most of us.

        The point of 911 is that it is THE defining moment of the infant 21st Century, it will shape the rest of the Century.

        The pro-Israel supporters complaint is interesting (but not knowing the details won’t make a judgement beyond that)

        In the late 90’s the US and Israel were having their ambitions curtailed by the UN. Despite the massive influence that both the US and Israel enjoyed in the UN they were both being constrained by International Law.

        Neither could act too far outside International Law without increasing pressure from the UN coming to bear.

        Israels actions in Palestine were declared Illegal. The 1998 unprovoked 4 day bombing raid on Iraq (courtesy of Clinton and Blair) was a step too far, it was explained away that Saddam had kicked out the Weapon Inspectors and Clinton determined this was a red line. It later emerged that the Weapon Inspectors withdrew on the advice of the US for safety reasons, they were about to bomb the country, You couldn’t make it up.

        So without an exceptional, world changing event both the US and Israel were hemmed in by the UN’s control over interpretation of International acceptable behaviour.

        Then 911 and the shackles fall away, the rest isn’t just history, its present and future.

        The UAF report (to be published very soon) will re-inflame the 911 discussion. That discussion does not belong here.

        A new dedicated blog will be more appropriate.

        • Macky

          Peter Beswick; “So without an exceptional, world changing event both the US and Israel were hemmed in by the UN’s control over interpretation of International acceptable behaviour.

          Then 911 and the shackles fall away, the rest isn’t just history, its present and future.”

          Indeed, the case for Cui Bono, and where we are now, very neatly put.

    • Clark


      “the existence of the blog is in grave danger disappearing forever. If Craig loses and he continues with the blog (inadvisably in my opinion) there is a danger he/ it will be targeted again until it (or he) goes out of business”

      It doesn’t work like that. This blog is not hosted in the UK; in fact it can be moved at short notice. So it is not subject to English libel law. Craig was sued in an English court over comments he made on Sky News, which is based in England. Note what Craig said:

      “To answer a question frequently asked, the reason I have accepted English jurisdiction is that the event was a Sky News broadcast, an English broadcaster. If it had been over my blog I would not have accepted jurisdiction as I do not accept the English claim to universal jurisdiction over internet content.”

      In fact the blog was first moved to the Netherlands due to Alisher Usmanov’s libel threats, which made quite a stir at the time:

      Alisher Usmanov, potential Arsenal chairman, is a Vicious Thug, Criminal, Racketeer, Heroin Trafficker and Accused Rapist

      • Peter Beswick

        Thanks for the clarification Clark

        My fear would be if Craig is set up in the future, then if related comments made on his blog by Craig or others could become admissible evidence in litigious proceedings.

        The title of his current new thread “The End of the Affair”

        I hope so.

        Great result for now though.

        • Clark

          Yes, a very good outcome today, one that sets a good example, I feel; choosing voluntary resolution rather than fighting to the bitter end. If only more international disputes could end in moderation rather than death and destruction, this would be a more peaceful world.

  • Clark

    Paul Barbara, I came back down to talk again but you had left. You asked about my ethnicity; I do not know it. I would find it more respectful if you would actually read my comments; you would already have known that I am adopted and was indoctrinated as a Jehovah’s Witless. I am using a borrowed device and will be offline for some time. Ask John Goss where he met me.

  • Macky

    Since we are “discouraged” to say anything negative about yesterday’s Court Case, I fear that far from being “The End of The Affair”, it’s just the beginning of a new level of over-zealous hyper-sensitivity iro criticism against Israel;

    So it begins;

    First the oxymoronic “Mr Murray accepts that Dr Wallis Simons is not a liar, and Dr Wallis Simons accepts that Mr Murray is not an anti-Semite”

    Then the “Free Speech” warning ” I would ask you to refrain from any comment here which detracts from the amicable spirit of the joint statement”, which disgracefully says it all.

    Justice has been corrupted by the threat of financial ruin, and behaviour tamed; a result for the Zionists.

    • Clark

      Grief I have a lot to think about today. Yesterday I sat with in little huddle with Craig and a few others outside the courtroom. Today I look at the changes to the landscape and wonder; about the feelings I had, the decisions I made, and what I said to whom. I’m not even sure what to write here, because everything I reveal, including my own thoughts, may have further effects upon future events.

      A question keeps returning to mind; to what extent should the media outlet which is this blog have animosity with the media outlets around Jake Wallis Simons? He is the Associate Global Editor at Daily Mail Online, and the Daily Mail is the MSM which has published Craig’s account of the DNC e-mail leak – the only one to call it a leak rather than a hack – and the only MSM to continue entertaining the possibility that Dr David Kelly did not kill himself.

          • Paul Barbara

            @ Clark November 8, 2017 at 12:37
            Yes, and Russo was told by Nick Rockefeller about the ‘incident’ that would occur (9/11, though Rockefeller did not explain precisely what it would be) 11 months before the event (same timescale as the Gomel Chesed Cemetery conversation).
            I find most people, when faced with testimony like that, are convinced, but not you.
            It was your almost total support for a ‘certain country’ whenever someone links it to 9/11 which prompted me to ask about your ethnicity, nothing personal.

      • Ba'al Zevul

        I am lifting my private embargo on Mail links, imposed, with similar considerations in mind, before Murray v Simons. The Mail occasionally does real journalism, even if it does employ Simons, and it absolutely detests Tony Blair…

      • Peter Beswick

        The Daily Mail along with the Telegraph and BBC could have exposed the Kelly affair at the very beginning.

        The Mail continues the hangouts to this day, a central journalist to the story that was / is still being told is Miles Goslett. Last week he reported on the alleged desecration and exhumation of Kelly’s grave. Goslett has a book out in April 2018 on Kelly by Zeus – Open Verdict

        Back on 18th July 2003, the day Kelly’s body was discovered journalists had been informed, before the body was discovered, that, the police were not looking for an injured or hiding Kelly, they were looking for a body.

        And when the body was discovered and a news / information blackout was thrown around the scene (the ambulance crew were detained at the scene for over an hour and not permitted to use their radio to contact their HQ with a sitrep) someone contacted the head of news at the BBC, Richard Sambrook and informed him that Kelly had committed suicide and a knife and painkillers were involved. This was several hours before the pathologist arrived at the scene, the blister packs of painkillers were not found until a few hours after the forensic crew arrived when they began the search of the clothing on the body. The blister packs were found in Kelly’s Barbour coat pocket.

        The MsM moulded what the public were told on Kelly from instructions from there masters. I wouldn’t lump Craig in with that shower.

        1st paragraph

        The MsM could have told the truth more than 14 years ago, they didn’t, they still haven’t.

        • Clark

          Peter, we can only work with what we’ve got, and no one knows the whole truth about anything.

          There’s an important sense in which the consequences of an event matter more than the causes; consequences look to the future, which can be influenced, whereas causes look to the past, which cannot, but with the caveat that beliefs influence action.

      • J

        Stockholm Syndrome? Fairness? Self preservation?

        In any case, even though the mail may have some virtues and though it may be a positive thing to dwell upon those areas of agreement, breathing the same air as those at the Mail is probably too high a price. (The older more esoteric sense of conspire.)

  • Peter Beswick

    Thanks Macky

    Its a lot to take in isn’t it?

    The US makes diplomacy with Iran illegal!!

    Trumps trashes previous hard fought diplomatic efforts to thwart Iranian nuclear ambition.

    The US Israeli lobby is not interested in promoting Israeli influence in the US and RoW but rather put Israel’s interests before those of the US.

    And now after neatralising US diplomatic missions with Iran Israel has mustered its own worldwide diplomatic web to maximise diplomatic efforts against Yemen, Lebanon and Hezbollah in favour of Saudi Arabian interests.

    Now back to the domestic front front and Craig’s little local difficulty, the spat settled yesterday involved (if I remember correctly) an interesting remark made by a Israeli Minister purporting that the prime minister of Israel is Leader of the Jewish World, to which Craig’s response had not been entirely supportive of the idea.

    So the Jews in the US according to some other Jews have allegiance first to the “Jewish State”

    And there you have it scene set for the mother of all wars, US diplomatic hands not so much tied as chopped off, Russian protective military systems locked and loaded and Trump ….. well er …. and just Trump really!

    Well the Twin Towers didn’t work perhaps its now time for something less subtle. (important source links)

  • Clark

    I hope Paul Barbara is OK. I got very cross with him yesterday. I am not as tolerant as Craig. But in my own defence, Paul has been needling me (and others) for months.

    Paul, I hope you’re OK.

  • Clark

    Those who think the fires in the Twin Towers were “small and oxygen starved”, see 02:00 into the following video. Second aircraft strike just out of shot at 03:15, incredible view of the fireball, debris raining down. Again; small fires? 06:30, 06:37; that’s a fucking inferno right across one whole face of WTC2 and half way across the next. Put a ruler on the screen up the vertical corner of the building; you can see that WTC2 was bent at the damaged zone, the top section tipping. Witnesses near the end saw the aircraft strikes:

    • Paul Barbara

      @ Clark November 9, 2017 at 02:00
      The scene you pointed out is indeed a raging inferno, but most of the pictures show black smoke, indicating, as you are probably aware, an oxygen starved fire.
      Thermite does not need oxygen to burn, as it releases it’s own, and can even be ignited under water.
      The fireballs, of course, were not oxygen starved as they mostly occurred outside the Towers.
      And the tilting top, in many people’s view, including mine, would have continued to tilt, and have toppled off the rest of the building.
      I know you think differently.

      • Paul Barbara

        Also, most of the ‘debris’ appears to be paper. And the ‘raging inferno seems to be restricted to one or two floors, with floors above and below seemingly showing no apparent fires.
        Though it doesn’t seem to show any molten metal pouring out, I would guess that is the same floor that it happened.

          • Clark

            Paul, to maximise their validity, opinions need constant revision by comparing them to facts. On Tuesday, at the court, your opinion of me was that I had dismissed an article because it implicated Israel. But there was a fact you didn’t know. I had found the original of the article, with far more detail and supporting documents, and posted the additional links; I had strengthened the evidence, not dismissed it. I hope that has changed your opinion of me.

            I’m here to help. I’m trying to help you and others recognise an error. Twin Tower demolition theory is dismissed by experts, not because they’re controlled by a conspiracy, but because it’s just plain wrong. Good people are being chased off threads like this simply because they won’t cow-tow to something that’s just wrong.

            What if someone did jujitsu on Saudi Arabia? What if they used Saudi’s own strength and let them throw themselves into a fall, and thereby hit two adversaries at once; the US and Saudi Arabia? Whoever the powerful man was who got out of the car at the cemetery, he said terrorism and planes, not demolition. He kept his own hands clean, he knew Saudis would do the dirty work, and if anyone got the blame it would be them, not him.

            And now everyone’s chasing explosives that were never in the Towers! Better and better! No one can get caught for explosives that were never used. And of course the investigators found aircraft parts, not explosives, but the Truthers have NIST down as an enemy for covering up two demolitions which never happened. Divide and conquer. Then we turn against Chomsky and Amy Goodman; we think Craig’s blinkered or self-censoring. Divide and conquer. We attack Clark for knowing some physics. And on and on.

            By deception you shall make war. But he reckoned without Szekely behind the wall, and we know Szekely wasn’t lying because we have the letters, and they pre-date 9/11.

      • Sharp Ears


        Oded Yinon – The Zionist Plan for the Middle East.

        ‘The Association of Arab-American University Graduates finds it compelling to inaugurate its new publication series, Special Documents, with Oded Yinon’s article which appeared in Kivunim (Directions), the journal of the Department of Information of the World Zionist Organization. Oded Yinon is an Israeli journalist and was formerly attached to the Foreign Ministry of Israel. To our knowledge, this document is the most explicit, detailed and unambiguous statement to date of the Zionist strategy in the Middle East. Furthermore, it stands as an accurate representation of the “vision” for the entire Middle East of the presently ruling Zionist regime of Begin, Sharon and Eitan. Its importance, hence, lies not in its historical value but in the nightmare which it presents.’ 19 pages

        • Clark

          Hello Sharp Ears, good to see you after so long.

          We NEED to stop the barking up the wrong trees! We are too easily discredited and dismissed. Remember the supermarket siege, the Australian who told us that the “police were shooting blanks”, and he hadn’t even checked the other camera angle which totally discredited his claim? I have found NO legitimacy for Twin Tower demolition theory; not a jot. If it isn’t a deliberate ploy to mislead, it misleads just as well as if it was.

          TRUTH, Justice, Peace. You taught me that.

        • Paul Barbara

          @ Sharp Ears November 9, 2017 at 12:53
          I have often used the Yinon Plan to show that that is indeed what is behind all these wars and Balkanisation that is going on in the Middle East.

  • Paul Barbara
    ‘I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world – no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.
    Woodrow Wilson’

    ‘Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men’s views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.
    Woodrow Wilson’

    Worth some thought for those who believe the ‘Deep State’ or ‘Shadow Government’ is a myth.
    And again here:

    ‘..PAUL BURRELL claimed last night that the Queen warned him that there were dark forces at work in Britain that could threaten him.

    The former butler said the warning was issued during a three-hour meeting soon after the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, in 1997. He said the Queen looked him in the eye and said: “There are powers at work in this country about which we have no knowledge.”

    She is said to have added: “Be careful, Paul, no one has been as close to a member of my family as you have.”

    Mr Burrell told the Daily Mirror: “She made sure I knew she was being deadly serious. I had no idea who she was talking about. There were many she could have been referring to. But she was clearly warning me to be vigiliant.”…..’

    • Node

      Woodrow Wilson wasn’t the only US president to fear the power of bankers …

      “If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks…will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered…. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.” . . . “Paper is poverty. It is the ghost of money and not money itself.”– Thomas Jefferson, 1743-1826

      “All the perplexities, confusion and distresses in America arise not from defects in the constitution or confederation, nor from want of honor or virtue, as much from downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit, and circulation.” – John Adams, 1735-1826, letter to Thomas Jefferson.

      “I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands, and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war.” – Abraham Lincoln – In a letter written to William Elkin, 1860

      “If ever again our nation stumbles upon unfunded paper, it shall surely be like death to our body politic. This country will crash.”- George Washington, 1732-1799

      “Whoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and commerce. And when you realize that the entire system is very easily controlled, one way or another by a few powerful men at the top, you will not have to be told how periods of inflation and depression originate.” – President James Garfield, 1881. He was assassinated just weeks after making this statement.

      “These international bankers and Rockefeller-Standard Oil interests control the majority of the newspapers and the columns in those papers to club into submission or drive out of office officials who refuse to do the bidding of the powerful corrupt cliques which compose the invisible government.” – Theodore Roosevelt as reported in the New York Times, March 27th, 1922

      “The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the larger centers has owned the Government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson.” – Franklin D. Roosevelt, in a letter written to Colonel House, 1933

      …and of course JF Kennedy’s speech shortly before he was assassinated :

      • Dave

        Yes and the influence of the moneylenders provides a motive for USA involvement in WWII, or more specifically the Presidents secret support for intervention, because Germany had nationalised the banks, a policy that could easily catch on in USA unless destroyed.

        • Clark

          After the 2008 “financial crisis” the UK government “bailed out” major finance companies with a £680 billion lump sum, followed by regular payments taking it to well over a trillion pounds. Such numbers are common in cosmology, but they had never been relevant to finance before.

          The obvious inference is that those banks were more than a trillion in debt; conclusively bankrupt, worse than worthless. Therefore those payments were effectively a buy-out by the UK government, in other words, nationalisation. But the financiers were not taken under public control and their future profits would not be returned to public funds. Some minor regulation was applied, but insufficient to restore control even to the inadequate levels existing before Reagan and Thatcher’s monetarist policies.

          Gordon Brown’s signature was on that deal, but somehow I think his role was relatively minor. Interesting that Blair had scarpered shortly in advance.

  • Node

    @John Goss,

    I checked your experiment. I didn’t have any beer cans so I squashed soft drink cans instead. I had to stop. It was soda pressing.

  • Clark

    From your link:

    “The findings thus far are that fire did not bring down this building. Building failure simulations show that, to match observation, the entire inner core of this building failed nearly simultaneously”

    That is what I have expected for a long time. I have downloaded the PDF. The video presentation will have to wait.

    • Clark

      Quite interesting so far. The claim “Building failure simulations show that, to match observation, the entire inner core of this building failed nearly simultaneously” is not addressed in the PDF. Instead, in the final section “What’s next” (page 85), it says:

      We are completing examination of progressive collapse caused by various conditions;
      – Failure at the substation level;
      – Examining building response for various columns removed;
      – Examining issues related to the perimeter trusses.

      What most interested me was that there has already been a court case which proceeded to appeal. Page 50:

      The 2010 Weidlinger Associates report was prepared for the defendant in the lawsuit brought by Con Edison and Aegis Insurance Co. against WTC 7 Properties and Cantor Engineering. It was not entered into the court record, although the judgement was ultimately for the defendant with the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling against the plaintiff’s negligent design claim

      WTC7’s collapse presumably destroyed the Con Edison substation it was built over. Clearly Con Edison / Aegis Insurance didn’t believe WTC7 could collapse as it did unless it was badly designed – presumably, the claim didn’t consider deliberate demolition.

      There were only 24 columns in the core. I’d like clearer diagrams regarding the following:

      Foundation: The building was constructed on caissons. It was built above and through a 1967 Con Edison Substation that was designed to carry a future 25 story building. New caissons were added to support the proposed building.

      – Structure: A system of gravity column transfer trusses and girders were located between floors 5 and 7. The 5th floor functioned as a structural diaphragm, providing lateral stability and distribution of loads between the new and old caissons. Above the 7th floor, the building’s structure was a typical tube-frame design, with columns in the core and on the perimeter, and lateral loads were to be resisted by perimeter moment frames.

    • Clark


      “Building failure simulations show that, to match observation, the entire inner core of this building failed nearly simultaneously”

      – “That is what I have expected for a long time”

      Videos of the collapse show the fall of the penthouse in two stages before rapid and almost symmetrical collapse of the entire façade ensues. Ideally, a good simulation should include those early features. The later part of NIST’s simulation which NIST omitted from publication would also be appreciated.

  • Peter Beswick

    I could be wrong but I thought UAF were still to report

    Progress report came out Sept ’17

    Draft main report due Oct / Nov ’17 (if I have missed it please someone point me towards it)

    Full report due Early ’18 after public / engineering community comment on draft has been considered.

        • Peter Beswick

          I think you must be referring to the “Archive” section with 6 “rectangular” sections, one being “Research Data and Analysis” which happens to be a 1.1GB Zip file, loads of stuff there (I downloaded it)

          My impression is that here’s some of the data and analysis that informs the final modeling stage of the project, This, as far as I know, has yet to be reported on.

          Looking forward to it

  • fwl

    You can go back before the 1920s to find Western powers trying to provoke Islamic fury, but when you look at it wasn’t it more like mercenary warfare in the guise or hope of holy war. Read Sean McMeekin’s The Berlin-Baghdad Express: The Ottoman Empire and Germany’s Bid for World Power, 1898-1918, pub Penguin. Religion or gamesmanship in which certain Arabian tribal leaders outwitted certain Germans. One interesting observation is that the Germans backed the wrong group and that if they had backed the Wahhabis they might have achieved more. Anyway, the book is fascinating and worth £10.99 of anyone’s money.

  • freddy

    Israel-backed jihadists beaten back by Syrian Army in the Golan Heights

    I wonder if
    PP visited
    or she might have entered the demarkation zone United Nations Disengagement Observer Force
    and had a few chinwags,
    some of the staff are Indian.

    Overall supervision of the buffer zone
    Monitoring of Syrian and Israeli military presence in the area (from permanent observation posts and by patrols day and night, on foot and motorized)
    Intervention in cases of entry to the separation area by military personnel from either side, or attempted operations
    Bi-weekly inspections of 500 Israeli and Syrian military locations in the areas of limitation on each side to ensure agreed limits of equipment and forces are being followed
    Assistance to the International Committee of the Red Cross in the passing of mail and people through the area, and in the provision of medical services
    Identifying and marking of minefields
    Promotion of minefield awareness amongst civilians and support of the United Nations Children’s Fund activities in this area
    Work to protect the environment and to minimize the impact of the UNDOF on the area.

  • Paul Barbara

    As Tommy Cooper would say, ‘Just like that!’. We’ll have to buy Dr. Hulsey a fez!
    “WTC 7 Did Not Collapse from Fire” – Dr. Leroy Hulsey, UAF, Sept. 6, 2017′:
    Hour and twenty minutes video. Back to the drawing board, NIST (or is it the river? There’s always the river).

    • Node

      Ha ha, KOWN, I’m not convinced. Looks like the floating guy in the background needs to tuck his overlong belt in, and the guy in the front making the hand movements is probably saying something like : “… and we stick stuff to the wall with magnets so they’re always handy.”

      Here’s one I came across recently. Is this proof of giants in space? Or was someone filming a TV monitor and caught a reflection in the background. This link will start the video in the right place :

      • KingofWelshNoir

        Node I’ve seen that, I thought it was really funny, but on reflection (oops) I think the face is a reflection on a TV screen or monitor. If you want a laugh look at the hair of the folk in the Space Station – seemingly super-glued in position – and compare it with the hair of people in the zero gravity plane, the so-called Vomit Comet. It flies all over the place, which is what you would expect.

    • Nikko

      Also not convinced.
      The presenter ends with someing along the lines “space is flat, it is dimensional, we cannot orbit earth”

      Does that mean that Brahe, Kopernik and Keppler are also in on the conspiracy?

      • KingofWelshNoir

        No it means that the bloke compiling the video believes the earth is flat. There seems to be a surprisingly big tribe of them out there, they may be nuts perhaps, but I have to say the NASA space station footage they compile does look very fake to me. Maybe I should check out their Flat Earth presentations, they could be on to something.

    • Clark

      Well there’s something very bright up there, and in the right orbit. I watch it go over, and you can too:

      When the timing is right and if you’re far enough from a “pole” (scare quoted for Flat Earthers), you can see one pass followed by another about 92 minutes later, which fits the maths of orbital dynamics. And the published schedules seem right; I’ve seen the ISS and the Shuttle in the same orbit, and the ISS and a Progress module together in orbit too. The ISS has also got brighter each time they’ve claimed to add a module to it. Apparently, the only human death in space so far was Major Tom, but I think that might have been faked:

      Oh, and for faked Moon landing conspiracy theorists, ascent and re-entry through Earth’s atmosphere were the most difficult and hazardous stages, so if the section four minutes into the following is real, maybe the Lunar landing isn’t so hard to believe:

      • KingofWelshNoir

        Isn’t that like saying, ‘Deploying the pods from Thunderbirds 2 was such a risky manoeuvre they couldn’t have faked it?’

        Anyway, as you are a physicist, here is a question to which I invite anyone knowledgeable on this issue to contribute. The video you linked to contains a bit at 4:46 that is typical of many pieces of footage from NASA but which strikes me as physically impossible. You have a craft orbiting the Earth (there are plenty of similar ones for the moon) and the Earth is up above the craft, but this should surely be impossible, unless the photographer is standing on his head? If you orbit a planet in a space craft, and the planet has gravity, then it will always be below you, no? Of course, we see images like this all the time in sci-fi movies, but is this a case of the NASA puppeteers looking for a more dramatic angle and forgetting the physics? Or have I missed something obvious?

        Genuine question.

        • Clark

          Really? Genuine question? Wow!

          Anything in orbit is in genuine free-fall. So how it looks is entirely up to the photographer; there simply is no “up” or “down”.

          Low Earth orbit (LEO) is just outside atmosphere, starting about 300 kilometre up. But Earth’s radius is nearly 6400 kilometre, so to orbit 300 km up is to barely skim the surface. Gravity up there is very nearly as strong as it is on the surface. What is really happening if you’re in LEO is that you’re falling, but not getting any closer to the surface.

          OK, imagine you throw a ball horizontally away from you at shoulder height – we’ll neglect air resistance for convenience. The ball moves away from you horizontally at, say, 2 metre per second, but it also accelerates towards the ground at g, the acceleration due to gravity. Both motions together make a parabola (Gravity’s Rainbow), so the ball hits the ground some distance in front of you.

          So say you repeat the process but throw the ball at 4 metre per second. The time for it to fall is the same, but it gets twice as far horizontally because it went twice as fast. OK so far?

          Now take a rifle, brace it against your shoulder and fire a bullet away from you horizontally; say the bullet is released at 400 metre per second. It again takes the same time for the bullet to be pulled down to the ground, but it gets 100 times as far as your second attempt with the ball.

          But the Earth’s surface is curved. If you had a gun that could fire a bullet at just under 8 kilometre per second, as it progressed forward the surface would be curving away from under it just fast enough that the bullet would never get any closer to the ground; it would be in orbit (remember we’re neglecting air resistance). Just over 80 minute later it would hit you in the back of you head.

          This is free-fall. Gravity acts on the body and bends its path into a curve, an orbit.

          Gravity is by far the weakest of the forces. On the surface, you don’t really feel gravity; what you feel is the molecular forces of the matter that is preventing you from falling. Gravity never hurt anyone; it was when you stopped… If you hold your arm out to one side you think you feel its weight, but really you’re feeling the tension in your muscles; you’re feeing Newton’s famous equal and opposite reaction.

          When you’re falling, there’s no reaction, so there’s nothing to feel; you’re weightless.

          * I said there’s no reaction – well there always is. There’s just no reaction force on you. When you’re falling the equal and opposite reaction is the gravity of your mass, pulling on Earth. When you fall towards Earth, Earth falls ever so slightly towards you. You and Earth fall towards your common centre of mass.

          Thomas Pynchon – Gravity’s Rainbow:

          • Clark

            “Genuine free-fall”

            Building 7 was never in free-fall. It was merely that the downward acceleration of its roof-line was very similar to the acceleration due to gravity. The two are not the same. A powerful motorcycle might accelerate away from a set of traffic lights with an acceleration equal to g, but no one would suggest it was in free-fall.

            When a body is in free-fall, the only force acting upon it is gravity. In controlled demolitions, the various parts of the (ex) building are contacting each other and the ground, which exerts mechanical forces on them – the bits are dashing themselves to pieces against each other and against the ground. There is also air resistance, which increases as air within the distorting internal compartments gets compressed and tries to escape.

            There has to be some other explanation for the acceleration of WTC7’s roof line. The core must have fallen first, and then pulled the shell down after it – whiplash imparting additional downward force.

          • Clark

            Thank you, KingofWelshNoir.

            Have you read Pynchon’s Gravity’s Rainbow? It is about time I read it again. It should be this thread’s mascot novel. Vineland is rather appropriate, too, because it touches on the making of propaganda, and why you might choose an Uzi as opposed to the competition. Play in the sand, never gets jammed, you know what I mean?

          • Clark

            “Just a floo-zy with-an U-U-zi …
            Just a girlie, with-a-gun …
            When I could have been a mo-del,
            And I should have been a nu-un …

            “Oh, just what was it about that
            Little Israeli machine? …
            Play all day in the sand,
            Nothin’ gets, jammed, under-
            Stand … what I mean – ”

          • Nikko

            There has to be some other explanation for the acceleration of WTC7’s roof line. The core must have fallen first, and then pulled the shell down after it – whiplash imparting additional downward force.

            WTC 7 was unlike the twin towers and did not have a “core” and perimeter “shell”. You are in danger of losing touch with reality – stick to the obvious.

          • Clark

            Yeah, WTC7 DID have a core and a façade; read the UAF report. WTC7 had 24 core columns, I believe. But it had much stronger horizontal members than the Twin Towers. It had proper girders, not weedy trusses.

            And the “obvious” isn’t so obvious; controlled demolitions generally fall slower than g, I think. g is not the smoking gun Truthers claim it to be.

          • Clark

            WTC7 was a pig’s ear. They’d built it over a transformer substation; hence the moment frames and the transfer trusses from floors 5 to 7. They used old foundation caissons intended (one day) for a much smaller building of about half the height, maximum. They built WTC7 to use as much of the available plot as possible, so it was trapezoid and asymmetric, and had structural members running this way and that all over the place.

            BUT. Building 7 was considerably more substantial than the Twin Towers. It had proper I-beam horizontal members, and was clad in granite – whereas the Twin Towers were clad in aluminium. And a court case found it to be properly built.

            The latter point implies that it shouldn’t have fallen down at all, and the former point implies that if it had, it would be very unlikely to do so symmetrically. Both points strongly suggest systematic demolition. The secrecy order must have been covered by national security for it not to have been cited in the aforementioned court case. Therefore, there must be documentary records.

          • Clark

            NIST must know, obviously. Various people involved in the court case must know. Surely? Someone should find the court records and legal submissions, and see who the expert witnesses were in that case. I bet both sides presented expert witnesses, and I’ll take a guess that both sides’ experts were in the know, and had been on the NIST WTC7 team – ie. the outcome was decided in secret, and the expert witnesses worked together so their testimony would determine the agreed outcome.

            WTC7 was “acquitted” of being badly built, so Con Edison’s insurers will have covered the loss. So: did the US government slip Con Edison’s insurers a back-hander? An over-priced contract accepted at some point would be my guess.

      • KingofWelshNoir

        No he isn’t. He is ‘taking the piss’ out of footage ostensibly from the Space Station that looks fake. He could be wrong about it being fake, but there is no doubt this is official NASA footage from the Space Station.

        • Clark

          How do you know it’s from the ISS and not from the simulator? The guy in the background swinging past on a harness looks to be traversing an arc to me, though I admit I haven’t tried to plot the motion.

          The video artefacts are meaningless; digital video breaks up into little squares like that – you must have seen it happen on Freeview.

        • Clark

          But this is daft! What does the flat Earther suggest I see going over with a 92 minute period? Whatever it is, it’s huge, the brightest object in the sky after the Moon; far brighter than Venus. Through binoculars, it used to look T shaped. Then, after they built extra modules on, it looked rectangular. There is quite clearly something very large in low Earth orbit, and visibly it was built piecemeal up there.

          Is he saying the whole sky is fake? We have historical records of Galileo being placed under house arrest for describing four objects orbiting Jupiter, hundreds of years before electricity, let alone CGI. I’ve seen Saturn and its rings through a telescope I dismantled, cleaned, reassembled and collimated myself. Here are my own photos of Jupiter taken with that ‘scope; you can see the cloud bands:

          Careful observation of Jupiter will reveal the shadows of its moons passing across the surface, and by noting the variation in timing throughout the year you can estimate the speed of light. People seem to think that science is something distant and impenetrable, something incomprehensible done by men in white coats, but that isn’t true at all; there are various enthusiasts who do nuclear fusion in their garages. People get up to all sorts of stuff just for the fun of it:

          • glenn_nl

            C: “People seem to think that science is something distant and impenetrable, something incomprehensible done by men in white coats […]”

            I don’t know if people (a lot of them, anyway) do think that. The general opinion appears to be that none of it is actually true – it’s _made up_, and “an opinion” is as good when it comes from their lips (or the lips of someone who said something they like the sound of) as it is when it comes from a solidly referenced, peer reviewed, highly open and respected scientist in that particular field in question.

          • Clark

            Hmmm. Such people promote “scientific” reports when the results suit them; for instance the lab tests of rainwater in support of “chemtrails”, though the substances reported could have come from a huge variety of sources, and there’s no check on the validity of the samples.

            Having messed about with science in such ways, they then claim their opinion to be as valid as any other because, after all, any science contradicting them was probably done under the thumb of the conspiracy.

            It’s similar to the experience of my old friend Marek who was working with USAF to refine GPS. They wanted an “Einstein switch” so they could use relativistic maths when they needed high precision, but just switch to simpler non-relativistic maths when the calculations demanded too much computing power. He had to explain it doesn’t work like that.

  • freddy

    Drone Attack

    Deir Ezzor, SANA – The US-led alliance committed a new massacre on Saturday in which more than 10 civilians and paramedics were killed in Deir Ezzor countryside.
    Local sources told SANA that warplanes of the US-led alliance attacked residential areas in al-Duwaiji village in Tal al-Shaer area near the Syrian-Iraqi borders, killing more than 10 civilians and a number of paramedics who tried to help injured people, in addition to causing massive material damage to locals’ properties and homes.

    The sources explained that the alliance’s drones targeted a car transporting a number of paramedics and people injured during the alliance’s attack, which resulted in destroying the vehicle and killing everyone on board.

    I understood from the news, that Vlad and Trump
    had agreed to coordinate air-attacks in Syria?

      • Peter Beswick

        Syria is interfering with US oil ambition; extraction, transport, un-metered CIA slush deposits & US petro $ transactions.

        Syria in a thorn in the side of Israeli illegal expansion ambitions.

        The US decided to create a civil war and funded, armed and trained anti-Assad forces.

        Obama said if Assad used Chemical Weapons against the rebels / (terrorists) it would mean the US would remove Assad

        Chemical weapons were used (not by Assad) and then again (not by Assad again)

        So the US said they would remove Assad and asked the UK to join in.

        Parliament said no and Obama looked like a dick.

        So more Chemical Weapons were used (again not by Assad) and this time the US said that’s it and Russia said on your fuckin’ bike Obama! And the UK Parliament said bomb Assad and then they sent the RAF and they did fuck all and then Russia got cross and Al Qaida rebranded themselves a few times and then there were were 400 + US backed terrorist groups fighting Assad and themselves and then Russia launched cruise missiles from Russia and then Obama looked like a dick again

        That’s what it has to do with the US! Got a problem with that?

    • Paul Barbara

      @ Node November 12, 2017 at 13:47
      Surely they’re a lot more O?T on the main thread than here?
      It helps to understand the conspiracies (not ‘theories’) that run our lives, and others, literally.
      They help to show skeptics the depth of the iniquity of our ‘Leaders’.

      • Paul Barbara

        @ Node November 12, 2017 at 13:47
        I should have added that Syria was just one of the abominations that would have been much more difficult for the perps to get away with had 9/11 not been committed; all that followed has been done under the ‘umbrella’ of 9/11 and the subsequent ‘War on Terror’ (which Nick Rockefeller laughed about when he informed Aaron Russo in 2000 that there was going to be an ‘incident’.

    • Peter Beswick

      To understand 911 (from a different perspective to the MsM propaganda feed) you need to look at the regions affected by the fallout, the recent histories running up to the event(s), the failing US economy and threatened petro $. Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria initially with Iran always in the cross hairs.

      US interests balanced with what Israel and Saudi Arabia needed to play ball. All that happened in the years before, since and what will happen next (adjusted to circumstance) is as important as the event itself.

      911 is not just about some planes crashing and buildings falling down, far from it!

      • Node

        Paul Syria was just one of the abominations that would have been much more difficult for the perps to get away with had 9/11 not been committed

        Peter To understand 911 […] you need to look at the regions affected by the fallout, […] Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria initially with Iran always in the cross hairs.

        I acknowledged this in my post to Freddie. But you seem to be saying that since everything has a connection to 911, anything can be posted here.

        A 911 connection should be more specific than the general connection you are describing, otherwise this’ll become a general news thread.

        Paul Surely they’re a lot more O?T on the main thread than here?

        Exactly! That’s why these everyday news stories should be there not here.

        I’m willing to go along with the majority view, but I think you’re both wrong!

        • Node

          I’m not arguing about the importance of the events you refer to. I’m asking you why you’re posting them here rather than on the main thread where they belong. You are unable to connect French nuclear power to 911.

          However I’m not in charge of this thread, and I seem to be a minority of one. I guess you should just carry on until a majority agree with me.

          No hard feelings on my part.

        • Clark

          Node, I’m not trying to “stir up animosity”. I’m honestly mystified. What the hell has the Sandy Hook or Las Vegas shootings, for instance, have to do with 9/11? The only commonality would appear to be that people invent bunk see through the MSM lies about them, so they belong on this conspiracy theory 9/11 thread. But as soon as anyone posts anything factual, conspiracy theorists brave truth-seekers try to get rid of them.

        • Paul Barbara

          @ Clark November 13, 2017 at 00:08
          ‘…What the hell has the Sandy Hook or Las Vegas shootings, for instance, have to do with 9/11? The only commonality would appear to be that people (invent bunk) see through the MSM lies about them, so they belong on this (conspiracy theory) 9/11 thread….’
          You know why they are linked to 9/11 – because they were ‘False Flag’ hoaxes (Sandy Hook) or events (Vegas), just like 9/11.

        • glenn_nl

          “.. because they were ‘False Flag’ hoaxes (Sandy Hook)…”

          Only in the minds of the utterly heartless, who think sheer cruelty is just good fun, Paul.

          Lord forbid you should have a loved one die like this, and you would be mocked and called a liar in your grief, just for the entertainment of useful idiots of the gun industry and the far right. Hope you’re proud of yourself.

        • Clark

          Glenn_nl, fair enough, but I was asking Node, because it was Node who asked Freddy not to post allegedly off-topic stuff on this thread, but never asks Paul Barbara not to post, er, Paul Barbara-type stuff; you know, clandestine willies, taboo party attendance, oddly shaped clouds, having the wrong surname etc. I couldn’t in fairness make any allegation based on Node’s long-standing silence, but when it became a case of clear double standards, I thought the time was right to point it out; maybe even Node might see it.

          This is what I mean about impromptu gangs attempting to control the narrative; literally, “please post only highly marginal stuff, or please get lost”. I find it highly ironic. Gang participants complain loudly that the “MSM” is channelled into narrow narratives, but are busily cooperating in attempting precisely the same thing themselves. That’s why my Bertie Beavis’s partner is Mail-reading Sheila Sheeple; they have so much in common.

        • KingofWelshNoir

          glenn_nl : ‘Lord forbid you should have a loved one die like this…yadda yadda.’

          The belief that one should not utter doubts about the official narrative of a terrorist event because it somehow disrespects the relatives of those who died is morally imbecilic. This whole thread is premised on the belief – held by many – that the government account of 9/11 is false. Are we all disrespecting the dead? You yourself admitted to having believed for a while that the collapse of the Twin Towers was caused by explosives, were you disrespecting the dead when you entertained that belief?

        • Clark

          KingofWelshNoir, you disappoint me yet again. Most of the comments on this thread are the polar opposite of uttering doubts. Rather, they are about propagating false certainty about, frankly, hastily invented versions of events. I see very little motivation to check evidence. In fact, anyone who challenges any of this marginal stuff is likely to find themselves on the receiving end of a load of unpleasant innuendo.

          Even you do it. Why? Do you even know why you do it?

        • Clark

          And yes, I expect it is highly unpleasant for someone who has lost someone close in an atrocity to find themselves accused of being a contrived idenity, a crisis actor, with people taking video clips of them from TV news, overdubbing a load of cynical stuff about their facial expressions being “totally fake”, picking up on some mistake they happened to make, and posting the thing to YouTube for it to attract further venomous comments. It must be even worse when the conspiracy theorists publish YouTubes with their home address, and they start receiving threats.

        • Clark

          KingofWelshNoir, you now have a choice. Conspiracy theorists generally disregard the sort of points I made in my previous two comments. They act like they never see such comments, biding their time validating each other until an “enemy” comment appears, whereupon they attack the commenter in their traditional manner. Reasonable persons would acknowledge the problem and engage.

        • glenn_nl

          C: “KingofWelshNoir, you now have a choice….

          There’s always a choice. The “conspiracy buffs” don’t want to make the brave choices though, and look at the evidence, and made the necessary conclusions. It’s Yah-Boo to the evidence, move on, and then repeat the same crap later as if it were never disputed.

          Just above, for instance, P. Barbara revealed a heck of a lot more than he might have wished. 9/11 is just like the Las Vegas shooting, and Sandy Hook, and so on – yes indeed. A load of BS eagerly promoted by the far right gun nuts to support their agenda. If that’s the standard he requires as “proof”, it says a lot more about him than it does about 9/11.

    • Clark

      The higher you fly, the faster you fall. He said:
      Send it up. Watch it rise. See it fall. Gravity’s rainbow.

      Why these mountains? Why this sky? This long road? This empty room?

  • Clark

    Why the double standards, Peter? The gang here were metaphorically kicking me for months and years, but as soon as I score a couple of good kicks back, you’re all for silencing the whole thing permanently. But best wishes to you anyway; I can afford that when I’m emotionally bouyant.

    Try watching the video I linked. Personally, I find it very moving. “The higher you fly, the faster you fall”:

        • Clark

          Er, no. Energy sources and particularly liquid fuel sit at the bottom of the production pyramid; everything else is dependent on keeping these cheap. If their prices go up a lot in a short time, everything else has to go up rapidly too, leading to demand for higher wages, strikes, protests and the need to rebalance the economy, along with embarrassing questions like “how come there are billions in off-shore accounts while my mum’s sitting in the cold eating tins from the food bank?”

          Saudi Arabia would normally be dissuaded from attacking Iran, but Trump is a loose canon.

        • Paul Barbara

          @ Clark November 14, 2017 at 20:15
          ‘…Saudi Arabia would normally be dissuaded from attacking Iran, but Trump is a loose canon.’
          Not at all; Saudi Arabia wouldn’t dare to think about attacking anybody (even the Isle of Skye) unless they knew the US and I*rael had their backs, and were pushing them to do so.
          In the PNAC documents, they assert they need to be able to fight major wars on many fronts. So we have their ‘semi-covert’ depredations in Africa, Yemen, Syria, Ukraine, and potentially North Korea/China.

          ‘Armageddon, here we come, right back where we started from,
          Where mushroom clouds bloom in the spring,
          Each morning at dawning,
          We count our dead,
          A radiation kissed miss say’s “Don’t be late!”
          That’s why I can hardly wait,
          Open up that Golden Gate!
          Armageddon, here we come come!’

          ‘Ashes to ashes, dust to dust….’

        • Clark

          Paul, you just agreed with me, while apparently believing that you disagreed.

          More importantly, your use of “they” changed twice within that comment, apparently without you noticing. “They” referred to Saudi Arabia at the outset, but silently switched to the authors of PNAC, and then presumably to a more recent and more generalised US pro-militarism lobby.

          I’m pointing this out because some ill-defined “they” is commonly used as a label for the presumed conspirators. “They” is merely the complement of “we”, as in “us and them”, just an arbitrary division of all people into two ill defined groups. No matter what happens in the world, “we” can claim that “they” did it, until “they” become “those that do all bad things” and “we” are the ones that expose “their” badness. “Our” entire argument becomes circular and self-reinforcing, and as such, meaningless.

        • Paul Barbara

          @ Clark November 15, 2017 at 14:09
          My use of ‘they’ did change, you are quite right. They in the first instance obviously referred to Saudi Arabia.
          Then I started talking about NIST; we are both aware Saudi Arabia did not write the NIST report, which was done by US Neo-Cons. So my use of they when talking about NIST meant the US Neo-Cons. Couldn’t be plainer, but rather than adress the issue, you nit-pick semantics.

          Now, to get down to business: you believe Sandy Hook was a genuine mass school killing, don’t you? So why don’t you respond to my 00.42 post this morning:
          ‘‘Sandy Hook School Massacre: Real or Hoax?’:
          ‘….Was Sandy Hook even open in 2012?
          Was Sandy Hook Elementary School (SHES) operational on December 14, 2012, or had it long been abandoned? If the school already was closed, no children or teachers would be there on December 14 to be gunned down by Adam Lanza. Here’s the evidence supporting the contention that Sandy Hook School had long been abandoned. What school’s neighbours said In an interview with Halbig on Truth Radio Show on March 21, 2014, Info wars reporter Dan Bidondi said (5:45 mark), “The school’s been closed down for God knows how long. [Neighbors] can’t understand why there were kids in that building because it was condemned.” Reports of shes being contaminated with asbestos. Requiring expensive repairs.
          Sandy Hook School was built in 1956. Several reports in local newspaper The Newtown Bee indicate that years before the massacre, SHES was in a state of disrepair and contaminated with environmental toxins. As examples, in 2002, Consulting Engineering Services recommended to the school district that SHES be “worked on in 2010 over a nine-month period” to upgrade and renovate its heating and ventilation system at a cost of $4.5 million.Two years later, in 2004, the Newtown Board of Education was told “there were serious problems with the Sandy Hook elementary school roof.” Four years later, in 2008, there was yet more bad news: SHES was contaminated with asbestos. (Remember that 2008 date.) On October 5, 2013, nearly 10 months after the massacre, a city referendum passed by over 90% in support of the demolition and rebuilding of the school with a generous $49.25 million grant from the State of Connecticut. The reason given for the demolition was “asbestos abatement”. On Dec 2, 2013, Newtown’s Public Building and Site Commission Chairman Robert Mitchell issued a report to justify the already-approved demolition……’

          The school had been closed for years; it had been condemned, because of asbestos (shades of the Twin Towers, also full of asbestos). So if the school had been closed, how come there was a mass shooting?
          That’s what I mean when I say ‘do some research’.
          Wolfgang Halbig has a load of evidence, but he was obliged to take down his website because of serious threats against his family.

        • glenn_nl

          Paul – do you have any sources _other_ than Nazi sympathisers? Because I simply do not believe a word they say, and it’s a waste of time to chase them down. People like you aren’t interested in the truth anyway, we’ve been around this too often.

          Drop the “Infowars” BS and get credible sources, or you might as well just say “I heard somewhere”.

    • Paul Barbara


      ‘….The US presence in Syria has been repeatedly criticized by Damascus, which stressed that any foreign military operation taking place without government approval would be considered an illegal invasion. Russia began its operation against ISIS in Syria after the request of the Damascus government.

      The US administration has yet to receive the approval of Congress for conducting any military operations abroad, but this rule is constantly violated. The continued fight against terrorists in Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Libya is explained by the fact that Congress allowed the Pentagon to fight Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks.

      Former UN Director-General Sergei Ordzhonikidze said that Jim Mattis made himself a “laughingstock” by saying the United Nations allegedly approved the presence of the country’s forces in Syria.

      “He just doesn’t understand or know what he is saying, and apparently he has no decent advisers who could tell him how to act… It is, I believe, just a shame to say things like this, for such a large state, a superpower, like the United States,” Ordzhonikidze stressed.

      Moreover, he added that the United States presence in Syria was illegal and was “an attempt to justify in an awkward way the illegal stay of US-led coalition forces in Syria”.’


      ‘….Lavrov directly denied reports that the once again announced US-Russian ceasefire agreement in southern Syria included a Russian commitment to ensure that Iranian-backed forces would be withdrawn from Syria.

      The minister stated that the Iranian presence in Syria is “legitimate” and added that the United States posed the biggest threat in Syria.

      “If you look at who is the greatest danger, it’s just the wards of the United States, various foreign terrorists, militants who are attached to those groups of armed opposition that the US supports,” Lavrov said.
      Earlier, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the Israeli side has informed the Russians and the Americans that Israeli forces will continue to take action in Syria according to its interests despite any ceasefire. Israeli Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman also promised to destroy the alleged Iranian military base, which is under construction in Syria. However, it’s clear that Tel Aviv will not get a Russian “support” in its efforts to limit the Shia influence in the country…..’

      The Russians are increasingly ‘telling it like it is’ about the US and it’s cronies and proxie headchoppers being in cahoots.

  • glenn_nl

    KoWN: Glenn_nl… ” morally imbecilic”


    What’s imbecilic is conflating (a) a claim that 9/11 was an inside job and (b) that the Sandy Hook massacre didn’t actually happen at all.

    While one might ponder if 9/11 might have been allowed to happen, or given a bit of inside assistance, all the way to being engineered by dark forces – not many people are claiming that nothing really happened at all, and that 3000-odd people never actually died.

    On the other hand, that’s precisely what your mates are claiming happened at Newtown. Nothing happened. Just actors – every arriving policeman and medic, all the autopsies and hospital staff, the funeral directors and parents, all the people in that town – every one of them a liar and an actor.

    Further to this, they have raised memorials to children who never existed. They attend empty graves, and grieve for nobody – it’s all for show. To what end? Oh yes, because of the never-ending gun-grab that lunatics from the NRA claim the Democrats are _always_ about to do.

    That’s what your mates are claiming, and I have never heard you utter a word to question it. But you call me “morally imbecilic” for pointing out how heartless all this is. A new low from you.

    • Paul Barbara

      @ glenn_nl November 15, 2017 at 08:59
      You don’t seem to have looked into Sandy Hook at all. But fine, believe the MSM and government agencies – they wouldn’t lie, now, would they?

      • glenn_nl

        As a matter of fact, I have.

        You think parents, teachers, fellow pupils, siblings, firemen – all the emergency services in fact – including the media, hospitals, orderlies, nurses, morticians, funeral parlors, priests, everyone in the town – they’re all lying. Every one of them, right? But you know better, just the same way you know better about everything.

        Now Alex Jones with “Infowars”, “Prison Planet” etc. – the NRA, the gun-nuts, fascists, the far-right – they wouldn’t be lying to you would they? Of course not. That’s why you believe every word they tell you.

        So tell me, Paul – why do you find the far right and gun nuts so believable that you think everyone else must be a liar?

        • Paul Barbara

          @ glenn_nl November 15, 2017 at 14:24
          ‘…You think parents, teachers, fellow pupils, siblings, firemen – all the emergency services in fact – including the media, hospitals, orderlies, nurses, morticians, funeral parlors, priests, everyone in the town – they’re all lying. Every one of them, right? But you know better, just the same way you know better about everything…..’
          All of these people and professionals you mention are PEOPLE. And many people will happily act and lie for MONEY.
          It happens with every ‘False Flag’ attack and hoax. Below I’ve put a short article and 3 short videos – I do hope you will read and watch them – then tell me and others on here what rubbish they are, if you can. And there is lots more EVIDENCE, but the article and videos should suffice for now.
          ‘…Now Alex Jones with “Infowars”, “Prison Planet” etc. – the NRA, the gun-nuts, fascists, the far-right – they wouldn’t be lying to you would they? Of course not. That’s why you believe every word they tell you.

          So tell me, Paul – why do you find the far right and gun nuts so believable that you think everyone else must be a liar?’
          I obviously don’t believe every word anyone tells me – I’m a bit too long in the tooth, and smart, for that.
          But one of the first things would-be Dictators go for is people’s guns.
          Because of the US Constitution, the PTB in the States have to tread warily, as so many people have guns, and the will to use them in extremis. So they tread softly, softly, incrementally swaying the population to support the gun grab (they’ll start with heavy-weight guns, and increasingly go to full-blown confiscation) by ‘arranging’ both real and fake gun atrocities. Each new one increases public concern, and support for the gun grab.
          That it has not yet occurred is no proof whatsoever that that is not the PTB’s objective.

          • glenn_nl

            Ah, so it really is a gun-grab then? That’s what the whole “false-flag” thing is about.

            P: ” But one of the first things would-be Dictators go for is people’s guns.

            Wrong, I’m afraid. You’ve probably bought into the far-right propaganda from Infowars and the NRA yet again, that Hitler initiated a gun-grab. But that’s an untruth – yet again.

            But in any case, was legislation curtailing gun ownership proposed following gun massacres? No? That leaves your theory just a bit weak then, one might reasonably conclude. Sorry, you’ll have to do better than that.

            Where is this “gun grab” coming from, Paul? Who’s proposing it, when is it going to happen, might it just be a far-right fantasy again – just like most of your odd beliefs.

            Nazi propaganda rots the brain, Paul – you should be much more careful. And kindly stop quoting it here.

      • Clark

        Paul, I can actually read what glenn_nl wrote. Look at his comment. He wrote:

        “every arriving policeman and medic, all the autopsies and hospital staff, the funeral directors and parents, all the people in that town – every one of them a liar and an actor. Further to this, they have raised memorials to children who never existed. They attend empty graves, and grieve for nobody – it’s all for show”

        Doubting that scenario is the same as “believ[ing] the MSM and government agencies” is it? All those people glenn_nl listed are all part of some conspiracy, are they? There is some kind of very large but separate community who don’t engage in everyday life, but are deployed when there’s an atrocity to be faked?

        • Paul Barbara

          @ Clark November 15, 2017 at 14:25
          So, are we to assume that glenn_nl went to Sandy Hook and spoke to these people? Otherwise, from whence did he get his information? Right, from the MSM (and pro-government websites). And very little even of that. So, yes, it’s believing what the government and MSM told him.
          If he or you did some research, you would find that, indeed, the whole of Sandy Hook IS populated by ‘unusual’ people’, and was before the ‘Sandy Hook’ affair.
          All right, I’ll give you both a helping hand:
          ‘Sandy Hook School Massacre: Real or Hoax?’:
          ‘….Was Sandy Hook even open in 2012?
          Was Sandy Hook Elementary School (SHES) operational on December 14, 2012, or had it long been abandoned? If the school already was closed, no children or teachers would be there on December 14 to be gunned down by Adam Lanza. Here’s the evidence supporting the contention that Sandy Hook School had long been abandoned. What school’s neighbours said In an interview with Halbig on Truth Radio Show on March 21, 2014, Info wars reporter Dan Bidondi said (5:45 mark), “The school’s been closed down for God knows how long. [Neighbors] can’t understand why there were kids in that building because it was condemned.” Reports of shes being contaminated with asbestos. Requiring expensive repairs.
          Sandy Hook School was built in 1956. Several reports in local newspaper The Newtown Bee indicate that years before the massacre, SHES was in a state of disrepair and contaminated with environmental toxins. As examples, in 2002, Consulting Engineering Services recommended to the school district that SHES be “worked on in 2010 over a nine-month period” to upgrade and renovate its heating and ventilation system at a cost of $4.5 million.Two years later, in 2004, the Newtown Board of Education was told “there were serious problems with the Sandy Hook elementary school roof.” Four years later, in 2008, there was yet more bad news: SHES was contaminated with asbestos. (Remember that 2008 date.) On October 5, 2013, nearly 10 months after the massacre, a city referendum passed by over 90% in support of the demolition and rebuilding of the school with a generous $49.25 million grant from the State of Connecticut. The reason given for the demolition was “asbestos abatement”. On Dec 2, 2013, Newtown’s Public Building and Site Commission Chairman Robert Mitchell issued a report to justify the already-approved demolition……’

          This video appears in the above article (only 3 minutes, so no reason not to watch):
          ‘Sandy Hook ACTOR David Wheeler Busted Playing 2 Roles?’:

          This one was removed from article, but is on another link:
          ‘Sandy Hook School Shooting Hoax Fraud Robbie Parker Actor Exposed Smiling Laughing then Fake Crying’:

          The following wasn’t in the article, but has some good extra information (I’m not sure about the bald FBI agent, but the three smiling and posing ‘grievers’ at the grave, and the kid supposedly killed in a Pakistan school massacre is IDENTICAL to one supposedly killed in Sandy Hook (Just how do you squeeze out of that one?????):
          ‘David Wheeler debunking the debunkers’:
          That one is slightly longer, but still only 11 minutes, so again worth watching.
          I look forward to your comments!!!

          • Clark

            Paul, Newtown has a population of about 28,000. I’ve seen what your evidence-checking is like. So on the one hand I’d need to believe that a whole town and everyone connected with it have cooperated perfectly to maintain a massive hoax for years, or on the other that you haven’t bothered to check facts. Hmmm, tricky…

          • Paul Barbara

            @ Clark November 16, 2017 at 03:11
            Sandy Hook is a very strange town/village, with many strange people – I am not going to chase up all the links, as I read/watched them a long time ago and it will take too long retracing them, especially as you and others probably wouldn’t bother reading/watching them if I was able to find them.
            Have you read the short article, and two very short videos I posted at 00.42?
            That would really take very little of your time, and I would just love to see you debunk the stuff!

          • glenn_nl

            PB: “So, are we to assume that glenn_nl went to Sandy Hook and spoke to these people?

            No, I’m afraid not. Even if I had done so, people like you would claim I was either lying, or had been fooled by actors there, or both.

            You – on the other hand, have been there, right? Oh wait! You didn’t, but instead got all your information from the far-right fantasist Alex Jones? Well, what more proof would one need. After all, AJ exposed the “fact” that Clinton had Parkinson’s. That there are always flies around her and Obama. That FEMA death camps were being set up. That 30,000 guillotines were on their way, together with millions of body-bags for a mass execution of US citizens.

            Jones also “exposed” Obama’s fake citizenship, the Clinton’s child-sex ring ran out of a pizza parlor. And so on, and so on. He’s a nazi sympathising, right wing extremist who makes money telling lies.

            So obviously, he appeals to you – Paul. I conclude that you are a far-right fantasist too. There is nothing to be gained from trying to appeal to reason with someone like you.

          • Paul Barbara

            @ glenn_nl November 16, 2017 at 08:11
            I don’t know what you are on about, ‘all my links are Alex Jones’.
            I gave 4 links on my above post at November 16, 2017 at 00:42, NOT ONE OF WHICH IS ALEX JONES’ SITE.
            Have you even watched or read them? If so, dispute the information, if you can, instead of suggesting I’m a Right Wing Fascist or fellow traveller.

  • Paul Barbara

    ‘Another Major Cover Up!? The Witnesses Who Identified The Multiple Shooting In Las Vegas Are Now Dead Or Missing?’:

    I didn’t know that the guy who parked Paddock’s car and said he had very few bags, Chad Nishimura, has gone missing.
    And the article misses out two who died in a freak one-car ‘accident’ (‘Boston Brakes’?). I don’t know if they had said there were multiple gunmen, but they may well have done, because some of the other ‘multiple shooter’ claimants also claimed all the survivors they spoke to also believed there were multiple shooters.

    • glenn_nl

      Is there some ancient cartoon you might refer us to again, that explains all this? As I recall, that’s the sort of standard of evidence you consider solid – case closed.

      The idea that the NRA with its far-right extremist stooges might want to explain away a hideously out of control gun culture, why – that’s just ridiculous of course. A massive conspiracy is the only sensible explanation.

      Have your friendly fascists and holocaust deniers explained _why_, exactly, these fantastic “hoaxes” surrounding gun massacres are taking place? I still haven’t heard anything convincing on that front other than “Carter/ Clinton/ Obama/ Al Gore/ Clinton is coming for your guns!”

      It would not surprise me if you duck it again this time too.

        • glenn_nl

          No you have not dealt with that question anywhere.

          I know why these lies are put out – to pretend that these massacres have nothing to do with an out of control gun culture.

          You have not come up with anything except repetition of the lies of the far-right and the gun lobby. This is either because your sympathies lie with the far-right and the gun lobby, or it’s due to the fact you’re rather prone to self-delusion and more than a little bit gullible.

  • Clark

    I’ve said it before (repeatedly) and I’ll say it again. We have a problem in the so-called Truth movement. There is little meaningful communication. It is probably pointless to continue attempted discussion of specific issues until this underlying problem is addressed.


    • glenn_nl

      I agree – it’s along the lines that the “truthers” have their set of facts, and anyone who doesn’t nod away enthusiastically when hearing them is stupid or lying. End of story as far as they’re concerned. And heck, don’t you know about chem-trails and the HAAARP conspiracy? There’s your proof. It’s as circular a method of “proving” a point I’ve ever come across.

      The alarming thing – one of them, anyway – is that this is all buying into far-right propaganda. Don’t the Truthers care about that? I’ve not heard one even plausible explanation of why these “hoaxes” are perpetrated. Surely saying “They’re coming for our guns!!” in a quaking flyover-state accent doesn’t wash over here?

      • Clark

        Glenn_nl; good. Anyone else?

        I think we need discussion about how we assess evidence, and how reliable various websites and authors are. And we need to discuss bias, in sources and in our own assessments, and what we can do about it.

        And I think we should talk about common behaviours on threads like this which tend to enforce support for particular sets of narratives. We seem to have our own Overton window, and it is at least as resistant to change as the MSM one is.

      • J

        “…is that this is all buying into far-right propaganda…”

        @Clark @glenn: you may be mistaking cause for effect.

          • J

            In effect, you cite your aversion to ‘conspiracy theory’ as the reason why conspiracy theories are of no value.

            If a theory contradicts your understanding, it creates an aversion, you call it a conspiracy theory and therefore it becomes worthless.

            Anyone can spread any notion for any reason. A notion is not necessarily a theory, it’s an idea.

            To assume that all notions concerning a given subject (let’s say 9/11) are conspiracy theories and intrinsically invalid because most of these ‘theories’ are not theories, that is a logical fallacy. It is frequently you who are insisting on their alikeness.

            Governments and MSM have been altering their theories as facts have emerged to contradict them. From ‘no prior knowledge’ to how the buildings fell, to the competence of the hijackers to do what was alleged, to expert testimony relating to intelligence, finance, logistical support, the nationality of the attackers, the direction of the US response to 9/11, the indifference to the actual known alleged perpetrators and their known allegiances and involvements, the methods the alleged terrorists used to enter the USA (including US diplomatic efforts to admit them,) knowledge of them by and their relationship to the various intelligence agencies, the various inconsistencies in accounts from 9/11, top to bottom not to mention the coincidences along the way. The many thousands of coincidences which were necessary for 9/11 to occur at all, let alone as described.

            Since this was written in 2004, an awful lot more has come to light. Most of it is actually is ‘out there’ but you better hurry, what remains accessible probably won’t be for long:

            The official accounts, mercurial as they have been, changing almost with the breeze, such alterations as are rarely given press or publicity where the majority might hear of them, are also conspiracy theories and in several specific areas far less plausible and predictive than some of the alternative theories, which come come with substantial evidence both direct and circumstantial.

            An idea combined with it’s higher probability to have happened but also with the predictive power to account for all the observable evidence, that’s a theory. The official theories do not come close. They do not account for many of the observed phenomena. You choose to dwell upon mere fancies and notions, dignify them with the term conspiracy theory, and then mock them as though you are a seasoned investigator.

            The core problem for an investigator is that nature of many of the key elements such as the collapse of building 7 have been skilfully avoided. The very substance of a working theory has been excised, until now.

            The real problem with the generality of your arguments is a profound unfamiliarity with the vast archive of material relating to 9/11, clear from your writings, but already in the public domain.

            Most of what you choose to describe is neither theory nor particularly interesting and hardly even suitably conspiratorial. And yet you claim to have debunked ‘conspiracy theories’ which you can’t cite with any confidence apart from the laziest and most spurious examples.

            When presented with diligent and conscientious attempts to understand specific observable reality, such as the unprecedented collapse of a steel frame building from fire, replicated three times in one day, one of which, with a high degree of confidence, building 7, cannot be waved away. Faced with the lack of any plausible explanation, NIST has quietly withdrawn it’s own findings, you are happy to contend that there is nothing much to see. Despite the fact that there is currently no official explanation for the symmetrical collapse of building 7 in existence, you don’t single out the official stories for scorn and derision. You accept this gaping hole as part of the argument against a conspiracy.

            In summary you assume that all conspiracy theories are the same, lament the tragic inability of others to think rationally or without prejudice and regularly congratulate yourself on the fine job you do laying waste to ignorance on the internet.


            If one points to a wide variety of ideas all attempting to explain 9/11 in a way which is more ridiculous and implausible than the official theories but then use those as an reason to discount, devalue or ignore all theories, even the most rigorous, detailed and plausible, is it not possible that you are mistaking a cause, the deliberate long term seeding of aversion toward any attempt at plausible alternatives to our mediated reality, with an effect, the aversion itself.

          • J

            As far as I’m aware, the first use of the term Conspiracy Theorist was in a document describing the “propaganda” techniques necessary to dispel the idea that Kennedy was killed as the result of a conspiracy:

            “The aim of this dispatch is to provide material countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists, so as to inhibit the circulation of such claims in other countries. Background information is supplied in a classified section and in a number of unclassified attachments.”

            From Countering Criticism of the Warren Report, dispatch by CIA dated 19 July 1968:

            Incidentally, the United States House of Representatives Select Committee on Assassinations established in 1976 concluded that “Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy.”

1 124 125 126 127 128 134

Comments are closed.