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 21 22 23 24 25 134
  • angrysoba

    Crab: “Even if a plane where to have taken out a device or two in the crash area, with the lack of footage of the first strike and fireball spectacle of the second, how visible need it be?”

    Take out a device or two? Those planes took out many stories each and created a burning hole in the side of the building.

    Are all those explosives not rigged up to create a chain reaction of exlosions or were each and every one of the hundreds or thousands of explosives that CTers estimate to have been there detonated remotely?

    MJ makes a perfectly good point that the superduperloopy thermite should have been ignited by such a fireball and we still have the problem of no sounds of explosives.

    The controlled demolition is looking shakier than ever, Truthers!

  • angrysoba

    “Thanks for those Larry. I suppose I was referring to those eyewitnesses who were interviewed by TV/radio immediately after the event and before the official account was in circulation. None of these is quoted on your link, but they give a rather different picture. It seems that an extraordinary number of senior fire department officials were in the vicinity time, but were not interviewed.

    You may recall that even General Myers acknowledged that the early reports were of a small plane.”

    MJ, what the blithering Hell is this supposed to be about?

    What point would there have been flying a small plane into the first tower and a passenger plane into the second?

    Is this a red-herring stealth attack on the “official story”?

    Do you not think that it could be explained by “expectation bias”? Someone says a plane flew into the World Trade Center. People hearing this will assume it was a small plane because passener jets tend not to do that. Even one person recording the second strike yelled, “Oh My God! What a coincidence!”

    It wasn’t because an “official story” hadn’t circulated until then it was because few people immediately assumed it was a terrorist attack.

  • angrysoba

    “MJ makes a perfectly good point that the superduperloopy thermite should have been ignited by such a fireball and we still have the problem of no sounds of explosives.”

    Quoting myself here to say that obviously Larry made the point about the thermite but MJ agreed.

    It’s funny that with crab saying the explosives going off could have been concealed by the initial fireball and Tim Groves saying the sounds of the explosions were masked by the clatter of the falling towers (and maybe a bit of traffic) we’re left with no more evidence for explosives than Carl Sagan’s friend’s dragon in his garage. Saying that all the evidence seems to have been masked by other phenomena which we do know was there is the same as saying that we have no evidence.

  • Jaded.

    So, when all is said and done, and on balance, it certainly looks like 9/11 was an inside job then.

  • Larry from St. Louis

    911 truthers cannot answer the questions presented, and they cannot tell us when their conspiracy theories will be accepted by the antiwar movement.

    911 truthers are increasingly ridiculous.

  • Jaded.

    Larry has been thoroughly discredited on this thread. Everyone should ignore his insane ramblings.

  • Larry from St. Louis

    Actually, any reasonable person would say that I’ve been “credited”.

    Good try though. 911 was a horrible terrorist action committed by 19 Arab Muslim zealots.

  • angrysoba

    Jaded, I think you work for the New World Order.

    Your comments are so utterly stupid that you’re clearly a disreputo agent paid to make the Truth movement plumb new depths of stupid.

  • glenn

    Chris wrote: “Can I ask where the photos are of the people standing in the gap created by the planes??? ”

    Sure – here’s a woman waving in one: http://thewebfairy.com/911/edna/2seconds.htm

    This one is a bit more clear: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWjHVDjk87s

    Still image: http://www.prisonplanet.com/images/january2005/170105woman.jpg

    (prison planet! Can you hear the foam and spittle starting to fly already?)

    I recall from the day that a banner had been unfurled calling for help, couldn’t find that. But this was easy enough to find:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msN1XEMByEs

    Surely you could have looked yourself, Chris, instead of sending me off to do searches for you, particularly as you expressed incredulity with a “???” at the end of your sentence? You think I’m your secretary or something, or are you just really bad at searches? That lot took me maybe 2 minutes, including checking them for content.

    The rest of your comments are simplistic argument by appeal to supposed authority on the matter.

    As for your charge of “ignoring evidence”… you’re not very good at finding evidence – heard of webcrawler yet?

  • Jaded.

    Moreover, angrysoba is almost as crazy as Larry. It’s a close run thing though. Everyone needs to watch out for these two.

  • MJ

    “What point would there have been flying a small plane into the first tower and a passenger plane into the second?”

    Don’t know. I’m just following the evidence. The fact that one can’t immediately grasp the point of something is neither here nor there. It is not evidence.

  • MJ

    The two impacts were very different. One thing the Fireman’s Video does show clearly is that the fireball created by the first strike was much smaller and of a different colour than the second. This despite the fact that, according to the official account, both planes should have had roughly the same amount of fuel onboard.

  • Sabretruthtiger

    Angrysoba wrote – “we’re left with no more evidence for explosives than Carl Sagan’s friend’s dragon in his garage. Saying that all the evidence seems to have been masked by other phenomena which we do know was there is the same as saying that we have no evidence.”

    Angrysoba, you’d do well to read my posts. I’ve proven beyond any doubt that explosives were used. Basic physics proves it. Ok, I’ll go through it one more time:

    FACT 1: The north tower ACCELERATED through the lower section at a uniform 64% freefall, which means that the lower section exerted resistance equal to 36% of the weight of the upper section, Newton’s third law of equal and opposing forces states that the top block thus exerted 36% of it’s weight, which means it?s exerting much less force than when supported at rest. This means a large portion of the resistance was removed by explosives.

    FACT 2: The top section of the North Tower almost fully disintegrated before the lower section started to explode downward, this disintegration would absorb any momentum and expelled the mass laterally, there was NO piledriver left to cause any kind of gravitational collapse!!!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xG2y50Wyys4

    FACT3: The top section of the South Tower topples to an angle of 22 degrees. Basic physics shows that the shift in center of mass due to the angle means that any torque imparted by gravitational pressure on the lower section accelerates the rotation of the top mass. The base of the top section acting as a fulcrum.

    The more gravitational pressure the top section provides, the more toppling would occur. discontinuation of the upper section’s toppling proves the removal of the lower section’s resistance, disproving gravity induced collapse and proving explosives.

    An off centre, leaning mass CANNOT cause a symmetric collapse.

    FACT 4: The symmetric, even collapse of WTC7 is IMPOSSIBLE without demolition as all structural supports must be removed simultaneously across each floor, and this repeated in sequence for each successive floor.this is impossible in a collapse resulting from structural or fire damage, as such causes result in organic uneven damage.

    Even a slight integrity inequality ALWAYS leads to a messy uneven and in most cases partial collapse.

    FACT 5: The 2.2 seconds of Freefall in WTC7 that NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) ADMITS to is IMPOSSIBLE without Controlled demolition as all structural supports must be removed ahead of the collapse front, otherwise ANY intact structural resistance would slow the collapse to a rate less than freefall.

    Freefall means all the object’s gravitational potential is converted to motion, in order to crush tonnes of structural steel and concrete, a large part of that gravitational potential must be used, which would slow it down to a rate much less than freefall.

    This proves beyond any doubt that the resistance was removed by explosives. The ONLY building collapses involving freefall speeds are controlled demolitions.

    FACT 6: Office fires don’t burn hot enough to weaken the steel. Steel has a high thermal conductivity, the large steel frame would draw away heat rapidly from hot spots. Quote from the FEMA report (Appendix A). “Recalling that the North Tower suffered no major structural damage from the intense office fire of February 23, 1975, we can conclude that the ensuing office fires of September 11, 2001, also did little extra damage to the towers.”

    The team at NIST could not get their computer model to collapse, in the end they managed a partial asymmetric collapse that looked nothing like the actual event by removing all thermal conductivity!!!

    The smoke emanating from the towers turned black for a while preceding the collapses. Dark smoke implies the presence of soot, which is composed of uncombusted hydrocarbons. Soot is produced when a fire is oxygen-starved, or has just been extinguished. Soot also has a high thermal capacity and may act to rob a fire of heat by carrying it away.

    Videos of people standing in the gash from he plane before the collapse proves the fires had progressed past their hottest point and combined with the sooty smoke, were cooling. Steel strengthens when it cools, it had survived it’s weakest point. Why should it fail?

    No steel high-rise has ever fully collapsed from fire.

    FACT 7. Nanothermite a high-tech military-grade explosive was found throughout the WTC dust and analysed by top scientists, and published in the peer reviewed Open Chemical Physics Journal. All throughout the dust, iron-rich micro-spheres were present, the only way they can be formed is through a highly explosive, extremely high temperature event whereby the steel is vaporised, forming small round droplets due to surface tension.

    I’m afraid that there is no doubt that all towers were collapsed by controlled demolition.

    The science is settled. The only question is how do we bring the perpetrators to justice?

  • MJ

    Good post Sabretruthtiger.

    “The team at NIST could not get their computer model to collapse”

    Which is presumably one reason the NIST report stopped short of analysing the collapse itself and was satisfied to describe only the conditions for the collapse.

    “Nanothermite a high-tech military-grade explosive was found throughout the WTC dust”

    The issue remains however: why wasn’t some of the thermite ignited during the initial fireball? One explanation might be that thermite was only placed below the impact points, but that still leaves the issue of how the top-down collapses were initiated.

  • angrysoba

    Sabre Truther,

    Some of what you wrote is all-Greek to me because I am not a structural engineer.

    However, it is clear that neither are you and your assertion that the science is settled is nonsense.

    You have no reason to believe the fires were cooling just by observing the colour of the smoke. Or even the person poking their head out of the gash. The fire was still raging in many other videos and photographs of the building right up to the collapse.

    “No steel high-rise has ever fully collapsed from fire. ”

    So What? So Fucking What? This doesn’t mean it can’t happen!

    “Nanothermite a high-tech military-grade explosive”

    Garbage! Now I know you are making shit up or repeating stuff Gage and Jones have made up. It’s not an explosive and it isn’t known to be used at all.

    Besides, you’re avoiding the question:

    Why didn’t the plane impacts set off the thermite or explosives in the buildings?

  • crab

    The proportion of the buildings which were damaged by fire is the extent to which preplanted devices where vulnerable to premature destruction.

    That proportion is indicated in the flaky official reports -somewhere- its a safe bet that its not more than 50% of each of a maximum of 6 stories, making it about 1/40th of the entire building.

    Planners of such an event could anticipate approximate level and direction of impact and take measures to protect and distribute devices away from vulnerable areas.

    The more destruction anticipated by the intial imapact, the less requirement there will be for further damage to that area.

    The notion of sobas that planners would have built in a fail-unsafe chain reaction to their system indicates again his lack of judgement in these matters.

  • angrysoba

    “Planners of such an event could anticipate approximate level and direction of impact and take measures to protect and distribute devices away from vulnerable areas.”

    I think those planners left approximately zero margin for error given that the buildings fell apart at the exact level of impact.

    “The notion of sobas that planners would have built in a fail-unsafe chain reaction to their system indicates again his lack of judgement in these matters.”

    I lack judgment when it comes to planning a controlled demolition that would be disguised as a structural collapse of a skyscraper hit by a 767?

    Yes, I must admit I do.

    You probably think all this is fairly routine stuff down at NWO HQ.

  • crab

    “those planners left approximately zero margin for error given that the buildings fell apart at the exact level of impact.”

    You maintain that the plane crash damaged the area so badly, that the area not only failed on its own, but resulted in the whole building “falling apart”

    The building will fail at its most weakened part so only some extra damage need be applied around the crash level to begin (perhaps connected to the molten metal filmed pouring out of its perimeter)

    But a great deal of damaged needed to be applied below to achieve what happened next, for which “fell apart” is an diminutive euphemism.

    “I lack judgment when it comes to planning a controlled demolition that would be disguised as a structural collapse of a skyscraper hit by a 767?

    Yes, I must admit I do.”

    Abandoned judgement:

    2 skyscrapers, identical, explosive, rapid, symetrical awe and war inspiring demolishment>collapse.

    Accompanied by penetration of pentagons air defenses and crash into section closed for refurbishment by an unphotographed hijacked passenger jet. Followed by the rapid symetrical total unexpected yet preannounced collapse of WTC 7

    Followed by obviously fake OBL video, anthrax attacks…

    Preceeded by the ruling political ideologies PNAC document actualy outlining a desire/requirement for such events.

    (Abandoned judgement)

  • Freeborn

    Someone mentioned a few hundrred comments back about the guys who fake the Al Quaida videos.

    Well I reckon we found a new job for Larry,techni,crab,Dutton and the disinfo team currently infesting this site.

    Ever wondered why these Al Quaida guys turn out to have names like Cohen and Pearlman? Or Larry,crabs and angri.

    Here’s why:

    http://www.subvertednation.net/al-quaida-is-a-hoax-war-is-a-lie/

    Strange,but I don’t think the angri-Larry mob have mentioned Al Ciada at all.

    Now we know why….

  • tungsten

    Given that the Washington Post is reporting that intelligence officials are telling a Senate committee that another Al Qaeda attack on the US is certain in the next six months it’s probably about time people wised up to the likely source of the attack.

    Canadians have voiced concerns about an even more imminent attack at the Winter Games in Vancouver.These Canadians have a good idea where the attack will come from too:

    http://ziofascism.net/blog/2010/02/olympic-terror-dread/

  • Larry from St. Louis

    Freeborn,

    1. You link to a site that says that 911 is a JEW attack. Hardly surprising, as this is Craig Murray’s blog.

    2. I certainly mentioned Al-Qaeda when I brought up the 19 Arab Muslim terrorists who did 911.

  • Larry from St. Louis

    tungsten,

    1. You link to a site that says that a future attack on the Canadian Olympics will be a JEW attack. Hardly surprising, as this is Craig Murray’s blog.

    2. If there is no terrorist attack in Canada, will you admit a certain degree of stupidity and gullibility?

  • juniper

    Hell,dammit Larry you still spouting?

    My,my-I told yer what a fine time I’z havin’ wit your wife,didn’t I?

    Sho’nuff seem you ain’t gon come home.You know Massa Sunstein say he gotta new assignment for you an’angri,crabs,dem disinfo guys youz hanging roun’awl’time.

    Massa Sunstein say yawl gotta get your asses offa the internet an get up to Canada.He say sometin’ gonna blow an’ yous gotta be dare for it.

    Larry,jussa take your skis and ski….daddle like Mr Sun say.Yawl no ev’ting gettin’ mighty hot for yer with Mister Craig-he just sicka yawl turnin’ up like a bad nickel an’spoutin’that pile a horseshite yooz talkin’bout 9/11.

    Jussa do e’body a favour one time,Larry-take a hike to Canada.

    P.S.Iz still happy lookin’ afer yer wife.She say she down min’ one bit if you wanna go off on another job for Mr Sun.We both no you’s the most patriotic guy ‘roun,Larry.

1 21 22 23 24 25 134

Comments are closed.