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).
Sorry John, this, from Kempe, was trollish:
Kempe, do you have to wind him up? It’s bad enough as is.
John, you still lied.
John, you defer to experts, but only some experts. There are lots of other experts who don’t support the theories you promote. And have you checked what these experts actually do say? many of them want further investigation, but you’re promoting holograms; how many of these experts back that theory?
And what about your lying?
There’s never any point in arguing with you Clark. You are so dogmatic about any bee in your bonnet you cannot ever see another viewpoint. It has happened before over Ukraine. So I cannot suddenly expect you to come round to the truth whatever it is, over 9/11. Because the official version ain’t it. Macky and I provided you with credible links over Ukraine, practically all of which has proven to be true. You started reading one but gave up on it. Then there was the combined harvester satellite images you tried to pass off as tanks even though you could clearly see the harvesting lines on the field. 🙂
“And what about your lying?”
Eh?
…and your lies, John?
John Goss, you’ve no idea how much damage you’re doing to your own cause.
Yes, your lies. YOU introduced Rooke’s TV licence case onto the thread. You then accused Kempe of “trying to divert the thread” for challenging the assertions you made. Actually, YOU have tried to divert the thread, twice now; in both cases onto how maligned the Kremlin is.
John Goss, do you accept rational reasoning as a way of determining truth and falsehood? Or do you hold that there is nothing but battles of opinion?
John Goss, 7:13 pm:
Actually I’m open to persuasion by reasoned argument. I used to believe that the Twin Towers had to have been rigged for demolition.
Sorry, I did lie. When I first saw the Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth there were only 1600 signatories. There are now 2,442. I am an engineer but not a structural engineer. I have not signed.
http://www.ae911truth.org/signatures/ae.html
There are even 320 military officers asking for the truth.
http://www.mo911truth.org/
Then there are the families and survivors, first responders, and then the pilots.
You asked if any of them believe the holograms. All of them I guess. Because none of them believes it to be possible to fly a 757 or 767 at those speeds with such accuracy. It cannot be done they say. Here is one video from Pilots for 911 truth where they have requested freedom of information recordings.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Laaq44SDgg
John, what sort of an engineer are you?
I’m a bit rushed right now; I’ll read your links shortly…
I think it is quite clear that I introduced the TV Licence link just for you to look at the picture which clearly shows WT7 standing when the announcer and banner said it was down. So no lie there. Did you even look at the picture?
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-23/#comment-576427
You then diverted the thread by trying to argue about whether anybody had seen the full report, was he actually cleared, and then Kempe (on my list of disrupters) decided he would divert the thread back to your diversion.
John Goss,- 7:54 pm
That’s pretty dishonest, too, isn’t it? You DID link the Rooke article as evidence. You wrote:
You were clearly asserting that a court had upheld that the BBC was lying. When you were challenged on this you declared YOUR OWN CONTRIBUTION a “red herring” and accused Kempe of trying to “divert the thread”.
Have you no shame? Are you the sort of engineer who’d construct below specification, pocket the spare cash and lie about it? Would you cover up for the sort of structural engineering inspectors who might have skimped on components or materials at the WTC complex such that the buildings were weaker than specified? It looks likely that NIST are covering something up; that’s why so many architects and structural engineers have signed A&E Truth’s petition. Are you the sort that would divert attention away from the criminals by pushing stories of pre-rigged demolition?
John Goss, please tell me what you’ve engineered so that I can keep well away from it. I don’t actually believe that you’d deliberately under-engineer or skimp on specification, but I think you’re in the habit of deceiving yourself and thereby deceiving others.
Do you not see the damage you’re doing your own causes? You’re wrecking your own credibility.
John Goss, each time you choose to fight rather than think, you dig your own hole deeper. Please start thinking, so that you can argue rationally.
Kempe,
No one here doubts your qualification to speak authoritatively on the subject of 9/11 but there’s just one thing I didn’t understand when we discussed it earlier.
Please expand upon your theory that when comparing different methods of demolition, “the fact that the buildings are of different construction is irrelevant.”
Dear 911 Truth Seeker
Sorry but we are all cunts.
Normal service should resume shortly (hopefully less cunty)
In the meantime go back to your bread and circuses.
Cheers
Node, if I may…
With any building, it’s a matter of weight versus strength – for a given geometry of structure, of course.
I used to think that the collapses of the Twin Towers required deliberate demolition. What changed my mind was reading the descriptions of the pancaking process and the internal structure of relatively lightweight, large-area floors; watching the collapses over and over again, and trying to imagine what was going on at the collapse-front.
I am no longer surprised by the manner of the Twin Tower collapses; I can see it happening in my imagination, just like I visualise all sorts of other physical phenomena. Of course the numbers matter too, but doing guestimates they seem easily on course for the collapses we saw.
Kempe’s statement was sloppy; of course the choice of materials affects strength. But it’s still weight versus strength.
The construction method is crucial. If the walls are load-bearing there can be no floor-by-floor pancake collapse.
Node, please substantiate and quantify that. Anything will break under enough load.
Clark, you really are totally out of touch. You diverted the thread and then tried to take a sentence from a comment to prove you did not. Then you accused me of having lied twice. If you do not understand go back and check.
Did you watch the video from 9/11 pilots? I think not. Did you watch the video yesterday at:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-23/#comment-576334
I think not. You watched the first seconds of it:
“John Goss, the first words of that video are that this is something the military would like to develop by 2025. Not even in development, just on a wish-list.”
Your comment at 8.38 is diversionary again.
Today I have been called a liar, insane, lacking in credibility, shameless, arrogant, paranoid and stupid. Is it any wonder, when I treat most people with respect, that I defend my corner, which is a corner I would rather be in than yours.
And the most despicable of all was the comment derogating my skills as a toolmaker – more precisely a toolroom miller. I served a five year apprenticeship and worked for seventeen years in engineering, mostly toolrooms, before going to university and expanding my knowledge into other areas.
Although I have made components with tolerances to a fraction of a thou, I hardly ever knew what the end-product was, so if you do, you had better tell me, so I can steer clear of it too. 😀
Clark: “I am no longer surprised by the manner of the Twin Tower collapses; I can see it happening in my imagination, just like I visualise all sorts of other physical phenomena. Of course the numbers matter too, but doing guestimates they seem easily on course for the collapses we saw.”
Strange, because I do the same sort of thing, and reach the opposite conclusion. I simply do not see the progression at anything like that rate, even if it occurred at all, even if the initial onset conditions were satisfied. We can agree to disagree about that for now, while we give it further thought.
One problem you have, if you don’t mind my saying, is that you’re rather insistent on ramming whatever happens to be your current understanding down your correspondents’ throats.
Now, for my own failings, it’s only fair to admit that I am (at the least) equally guilty of most of the things I charged you with recently. But you should admit too, that the accusation I’m also “championing the Official Story” by _failing_ to challenge the Official Story that jets did not crash into nuclear plants is a logical fallacy. Failing to challenge something _not_ stated is not the same as a supporting something which _is_ stated. I think you’ve slightly misapplied De Morgan’s laws here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Morgan's_laws
However, what does puzzle me about conspiracy theorists – and rather annoys me if truth be told – is their willingness to label everything a “False Flag Operation”, even when the official narrative is in their favour.
The official narrative – 9/11, the London Underground bombings of 7/7, the Paris atrocities and so on, is a rather obvious consequence of our foreign policy of Imperialist aggression. They (the terrorists) are simply responding to it, in the only manner available to them – they have tried everything else already.
What is wrong with simply pointing that out? Why is one a state-sponsored stooge for merely stating that terrorism (when it comes from anyone except us) is a rather predictable response from people who have had enough of us bombing and killing their comrades, and would rather we desist from the practice by showing us what it feels like in revenge?
Hell, if people from another country had obliterated my own extended family at a wedding gathering, thinking it great sport to kill us from the air with massively superior weaponry for absolutely no good reason at all, it’s more than possible I’d be unhinged enough to want to kill their innocents in return. Ahh, but that’s “justifying terrorism” in official-speak, and probably enough to get one locked up for even suggesting it.
Onwards and upwards, as we bomb our way to peace, freedom and democracy.
Node: “The construction method is crucial. If the walls are load-bearing there can be no floor-by-floor pancake collapse.”
Clark: “Node, please substantiate and quantify that. Anything will break under enough load.”
Node’s point is correct – a straight down collapse will not happen with node-bearing (sorry, load-bearing!) walls. Dammit, I didn’t want to be dragged straight back into this again.
Anything will break under enough load – true, but entirely irrelevant in this case. It might break, but not without substantially arresting the downward progression, while Clark’s imagined scenario has each floor entirely untethered, relaxing in mid-air just waiting to be released by something falling on it. Thereupon, away it goes, providing nothing more than its own inertia by way of impediment to free-fall.
But – dammit! – I didn’t want to get dragged back into this for now.
Glenn, thanks for pointing out the “false flag” contradiction. Here’s a video you may find interesting:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7EB1FxENxQ
Uncourteous of me, sorry Clark, to be so presumptuous as to say “We can agree to disagree”, I should have asked for your permission. So if you please, might we come back to this at some point – there are more significant issues at hand, even than that.
Glenn, 12:42 am:
Yes, this attitude from most of our politicians and the corporate media is what we must unite against. This strife over planes or holograms, gravity or thermite has gone on for fourteen years, who does it serve? It just divides us and wastes our time and energy.
Glenn, you and I can tinker with collapse models in our spare time if you like. You’ll have to start quantifying things, though 😉
John Goss, 12:37 am; I have precisely NO evidence that you ever did anything wrong as an engineer.
“That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence”.
But remember; you (and Captain Lear) have precisely no evidence that holograms were used on 9/11. You have zero evidence that projectable holograms even exist! So I can dismiss your allegation that I’m pushing “spook stories” as merely a smear. Stop smearing me and I won’t smear you, OK?
Exexpat: Glenn, / What “stuff” ? Please specify. / Cheers”
Exaxpat: My apologies. Scanning this stuff as scantily as time allows, this comment got soaked into my addled brain as one from Clark, and so I incorporated a reply into an earlier message to him. Clearly, my memory isn’t what it used to be. (Me curly hair is getting thin, it’s all the wimmin an’ wine)
Apologies for my ignorance in failing to respond, no offence intended.
Clark covered the various TV standards, and the interplay therein pretty well – didn’t you think? I hope you realise we’re not some tag-team. We barely communicate, in truth.
The pixels pretending to be falling bodies was utter rubbish, surely you know that – right? Plenty of people fell to their deaths. That is very horrible stuff, and was no less true than what happened after the Triangle Shirtwaist fire, when people threw themselves voluntarily to their deaths, jumped – sometimes holding hands – rather than burn to death.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_Shirtwaist_Factory_fire
The same behaviour is common in human nature, and was observed as the buildings burned. Because some digitised copies of original video is pixellated, god knows how many generations down, it would be rash to conclude that’s all that anybody witnessed – and discount the testimony of thousands of people at first hand.
I’d like to know why you regard these sources as so reliable. Can you please explain why that video of falling bodies was so convincing to you, so that you conclude that nobody actually fell?
*
Rather than try to dispel a smattering of references, you-tube videos and so on – the “stuff” mentioned – can you think of anything really specific? Please try and put as much work into that, as you want in the reply. “Hey – respond to this 3-hour youtube video” isn’t much of a fair discussion.