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 85 86 87 88 89 134
  • Paul Barbara

    @RobG 12 Mar, 2016 – 6:56 pm
    ‘Folks might also ask why one of the most seminal events in modern history, which has profoundly changed our world for the worst, an event that has many questions hanging over it, is relegated to a backwater thread like this.
    You’re allowed to discuss it; but shh, not too loudly.’

    It makes perfect sense to have a separate, and indeed signposted, thread to 9/11; there are only three such on Craig’s blog, which indicates even if he believes the official story, he is willing to allow others to discuss ‘Alternative Narratives’ or question the ‘Official Narrative’ till the cows come home. Good on yer, Craig!

    Though obviously there is some stretch in blog ‘keeping on subject’, it really would be chaos if everyone posted on whatever entered their mind, on a completely different blog subject. It also helps those who are genuinely interested in the 9/11 business to have a place to go to (here I suggest another, pretty dedicated one: – I post as ‘outsider’).

    I will watch the Icke video, but I have very little time for him. Yes, he often tells the truth about 9/11 and so forth,
    but he also once came out as ‘God’.
    And re ‘Shape Shifting Lizards’, he used a woman, Arizona Wilder, a self-proclaimed ‘Mind Controlled’ slave, to back up his thesis; however, ‘Arizona Wilder’ has now come out and said she was still ‘Mind Controlled’ when he interviewed her on video, and that Icke knew it. Either way, Arizona Wilder is not a person to put much faith in.
    BUT, Cathy O’Brien told Icke that George HW Bush had ‘changed’ himself into a ‘Shape Shifting Lizard’ in front of her, by means of a hologram; and that he had explained that this was a way of frightening and controlling people. So she refused to confirm Icke’s tale of their being real. And Cathy O’Brien is one pucka, incredibly brave and resilient ‘Mind Control’ survivor.

    @Clark, never mind about any ‘disinformation’ Nick Rockefeller may have given Russo; Russo was a very successful businessman, and knew his onions. Unlike most, he was not willing to cast humanity to the dogs in order to further his career at their expense; had he taken up Rockefeller’s invitation to join the CFR, he would have been a ‘Made Man’, as they say in the Mafia.
    And the substance of what he was told has very largely come to pass.

  • Clark

    Rob, I’ve just seen your comment on the front thread that links to this story:

    That is really quite surreal. The judgement has been around since 2012 (see date stamp on document), and this latest development only says that “…Iran had failed to defend claims that it aided the Sept. 11 hijackers”. The document case 1:03-cv-09848-GBD says it relates to Havlish v. bin Laden 03 Civ.9848 (GBD) (FM) which is doubly surreal since (1) bin Laden has never been charged with anything in respect of 9/11 and (2) bin Laden was supposedly in Afghanistan, not Iran. Here’s the document:

  • Clark


    “never mind about any ‘disinformation’ Nick Rockefeller may have given Russo; Russo was a very successful businessman, and knew his onions”

    But so far as I know, Russo had no direct access to any evidence regarding 9/11. His character and intelligence doesn’t come into it. His only source of information additional to anything in the public domain is what Rockerfeller told him, so it is not Russo that we’d be relying on but Rockerfeller.

    That’s just logic, which always needs to be applied. When I’ve seen the video I’ll say if there’s any reason to revise that position.

  • RobG

    @Paul Barbara
    12 Mar, 2016 – 10:53 pm

    So you’re quite content to be ‘allowed’ to talk about 9/11 (I repeat, the most seminal moment in modern history) on obscure corners of boards like this? with nothing whatsoever from the MSM?

    Good on you.

    It’s how they get away with it.

  • RobG

    Clark, I take your word for it. I only saw that news item for the first time on Thursday (10th March). If that US court case judgement about Iran had been out there any earlier I think some people might have picked-up on it.

  • Clark

    I’ve heard of money transfers from Pakistan’s ISI but that’s the first time I’ve heard a 9/11 allegation against Iran. Incredibly tenuously it could make utterly marginal sense since al-Qaeda are rebels to the Saudi power structure and Iran and al-Qaeda both oppose the US, but really it’s ridiculous since Iran is fiercely opposed to al-Qaeda.

    Ten billion dollars is a big damages award so the court is treating Iran as if it holds a major responsibility for the attacks. Maybe the court are hoping that Iran will pass the suit onwards and sue the party Iran holds to be responsible. More likely it’s just typical Iran-bashing by the US.

    Iran has replied via RT:

  • Clark

    Rob, don’t take my word for it; I uploaded the document to my server (link above), check the date stamps. The document says it can be appealed; I suppose the extra three years could be to demonstrate that Iran was given time to appeal…

  • Clark

    Actually I may have a very vague memory of something like this from a few years ago, but dismissed it as utterly ludicrous.

    I also think I remember civil compensation suits in London courts against important Saudi Arabians that were prevented from going ahead due to “US national security concerns”. It was quite important because it was an alarming precedent that a civil case couldn’t proceed in the UK due to US pressure. It called into question the independence of the UK courts.

    I have some vague suspicion that these two matters could be related?

  • RobG

    Clark, why don’t you address the fact that the US wants to wage war on Iran?

    In fact, why do you purposely attempt to obscure this fact?

  • Clark

    RobG, 11:27 pm:

    “It’s how they get away with it”

    There is no generalised “They”. That’s conspiracy theorists’ thinking.

    Our discussion of 9/11 is under no restriction; there are hundreds of places to discuss it.

    The privately owned corporate media publish what they want to publish about 9/11, naturally, and naturally none of us can force them to discuss it as we might wish.

    Governments likewise, though the public have a bit more influence upon them through FOI requests etc.

    Each have their own agenda. For instance, the US government tried to pressure US media organisations not to publish bin Laden’s denial of involvement. I saw that recently but now can’t find it again.

  • Clark

    RobG 11:33 pm;

    “If that US court case judgement about Iran had been out there any earlier I think some people might have picked-up on it.”

    December 2011 – “U.S. District Court Rules Iran Behind 9/11 Attacks”

    But the main suspect remains Saudi Arabia:

    “The Saudis deny any role in 9/11, but the CIA in one memo reportedly found “incontrovertible evidence” that Saudi government officials — not just wealthy Saudi hardliners, but high-level diplomats and intelligence officers employed by the kingdom — helped the hijackers both financially and logistically. The intelligence files cited in the report directly implicate the Saudi embassy in Washington and consulate in Los Angeles in the attacks, making 9/11 not just an act of terrorism, but an act of war.”

  • Clark

    RobG, 12:06 am; Where have I purposely obscured anything?

    The US neocons have been speaking threateningly towards Iran for decades. Iran is of course on Wesley Clark’s list of “seven countries in five years”, but it’s both the last and the most powerful on the list. That’s no coincidence; the US wouldn’t attack Iran until it had defeated all those lesser countries, partly to lessen any other opposition, partly to deprive Iran of as much support as possible. Iran is big, well organised and powerful. The US, for all their military might, smash less powerful countries, ones that can’t fight back very well, and in Iraq’s case they weakened them first with crippling sanctions.

    Despite the rhetoric, the US is not nearly ready to attack Iran. Since sanctions were lifted Iranian oil has rejoined the international market; the neocons may be happy to keep oil prices down as part of their economic pressure upon Russia.

    Ironically the US was much more hostile toward Iran in 2011, when that judgement was originally reached. What I haven’t worked out yet is why that judgement submerged and why it has suddenly resurfaced now.

  • Paul Barbara

    In a rush so will bypass a number of points; but I will be able to find that business about refusing to report OBL’s denial; and Helen Thomas (RIP) states in one of her books that that was the lowest point of US journalism, the MSM kowtowing to the PERSONAL telephone calls by Colin Powel & Condoleezza Rice asking/telling the Editors not to publish OBL’s denial, ‘in case he had a secret message implanted in the message to his agents’ (that’s not quite verbatim). I have the book, but can’t find it at present.

    • lysias

      San Diego Source: Powell Says Terror Network May Be Using Public Statements To Convey Hidden Message (Oct. 10, 2001):

      WASHINGTON (AP) – Secretary of State Colin Powell cautioned on Wednesday that the statements made by Osama bin Laden’s terrorist organization and broadcast on televisions around the world may contain “some kind of message.”

      Powell said analysts were looking at the statements, including the one made Tuesday by al-Qaida spokesman Abu Ghaith praising the Sept. 11 terror attacks on the United States and warning there would be more.

      The secretary of state, appearing on CNN, also thanked the network for limiting its broadcast of the statements.

      “I think it’s responsible on the part of CNN to shade that a little bit so that we don’t have it coming full force at us and with the potential of perhaps conveying some kind of message,” he said.

      A CNN spokesman said the network will not air live statements from the al-Qaida organization and will review the messages on a case-by-case basis before any are broadcast.

      “CNN policy is to avoid reporting any material that we believe would directly facilitate terrorist acts,” Matthew Furman said.

      • lysias

        Solomon, N. (2006). Mass media: Aiding and abetting militarism, in Masters of war: Militarism and blowback in the era of American empire. New York: Routledge, 2003. (pp. 245 – 260). Chapter 10, Mass Media: Aiding and Abetting Militarism Propaganda Machinery:

        With the overwhelming bulk of news organizations accustomed to serving as amplification
        systems for Washington’s warriors in times of crisis, the White House found itself in a strong
        position to retool and lubricate the machinery of domestic propaganda after September 11, 2001.
        When confronted with claims about “coded messages” that Osama bin Laden and his henchmen
        might be sending via taped statements (as though other means like the Internet did not exist), TV
        network executives fell right into line.

        Tapes of Al Qaeda leaders provided a useful wedge for the administration to hammer away at
        the wisdom of (government-assisted) self-censorship. Network execs from ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox,
        and CNN were deferential in an October 10 conference call with Condoleeza Rice. The
        conversation was “very collegial,” Ari Fleischer told the White House press corps.1
        The result was
        an agreement, the New York Times reported, to “abridge any future videotaped statements from
        Osama bin Laden or his followers to remove language the government considers inflammatory.”2
        was, the Times added, “the first time in memory that the networks had agreed to a joint
        arrangement to limit their prospective news coverage.” News corporation magnate Rupert
        Murdoch, speaking for Fox, promised: “We’ll do whatever is our patriotic duty.”3
        CNN, owned by
        the world’s largest media conglomerate, AOL Time-Warner, was eager to present itself as a

        “Guidance” from the “appropriate authorities” was exactly what the president’s strategists had
        in mind—brandishing a club without quite needing to swing it. As longtime White House reporter
        Helen Thomas noted in a column, “To most people, a ‘request’ to the television networks from the
        White House in wartime carries with it the weight of a government command. The major networks
        obviously saw it that way… .”5

        The country’s TV news behemoths snapped to attention and saluted.
        “I think they gave away a precedent, in effect,” said James Naughton, president of the Poynter
        Institute for Media Studies. “And now it’s going to be hard for them not to do whatever else the
        government asks.”6

        Some ominous steps were underway. “The U.S. State Department contacted the Voice of
        America, a broadcast organization funded by the federal government, and expressed concern
        about the radio broadcast of an exclusive interview with Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar,”
        according to the Committee to Protect Journalists, based in New York.7

        As a follow-up, VOA head
        Robert Reilly “distributed a memo barring interviews with officials from ‘nations that sponsor
        terrorism.'” In early October, while the U.S. government prepared for extensive bombing of
        Afghanistan, efforts increased to pressure media outlets—both domestically and globally. Colin
        Powell urged the Emir of Qatar to lean on the Qatar-based Al Jazeera satellite TV network. A
        correspondent for the San Francisco Chronicle, reporting from Cairo, remarked on “the sight of the
        United States, the defender of freedom and occasional critic of Arab state repression, lobbying one
        of the most moderate Arab leaders to rein in one of the region’s few sources of independent news.”

  • Clark

    Paul, 1:16 pm; yep, that’s the reference. I browsed into it some days ago. Incidentally, what a ludicrous excuse from Powell and Rice.

    Rob and others,

    This is what I mean when I say that the so-called “official version” isn’t really the simple concept it’s often presented as. Rob accused me (via e-mail) of “err[ing] towards the official explanation of 9/11” and “marginalising different opinions”. But we have a problem; the various “non-official explanations” have diverged wildly and are completely contradictory. Any sane observer will look at the “9/11 Truth” landscape, think “WTF?” and run away.

    The rule within the Truth movement seems to have become that one has to say something that grossly contradicts a commonly held major belief about 9/11. If you do, other Truthers won’t question it, even if it contradicts their own position. If you don’t, other Truthers will call you a “troll” and claim you’re working for the CIA or suchlike, like you do about me, Craig and this site.

    So we all end up each other’s enemies and the warmongers just laugh at the entire movement. We must be able to do better than this.

  • Paul Barbara

    Clark, ludicrous but accepted by the Presstitutes; never mind the truth; never mind how many people will die, be raped, tortured, maimed. I’se doing OK, an’ I’se wanna keep it that way.
    Check out ‘Bohemian Grove: Cremation of Care’ (but not till you’ve checked out the other links!)

    If you actually came up with Helen Thomas’s quote, please post the link; it’s been widely known for yonks that the US Establishment stopped OBL’s denial being reported, but the source wasn’t actually specified.

  • Clark

    Node, that’s the incident, but not the reference to it that I found – I’m still looking… I’m pretty sure that what I saw was an article on a mainstream US news website which was explicit that Rice and Powell asked that bin Laden’s denial not be published.

    Maybe I saw it on which is why it isn’t showing up when I search my browser history.

  • Paul Barbara

    @————·´`·.¸¸.¸¸.··.¸¸Node 13 Mar, 2016 – 10:52 pm
    Thanks, that’s the quote I was referring to;

    and Clark, if you find the other one, please post it.

  • mog


    As a layperson so to speak, I cannot pretend to be able to work through the mathematics of, say, Bazant’s pile driver hypothesis. However, I have not seen any example of structures behaving in such a manner as seen at WTC on 9/11 except as acknowledged controlled demolitions. The many times that I have broken up material with a hammer, the hammer always slows down if there is any significant resistance in the material in question.
    My understanding of school level physics tells me that the potential energy of the ‘pile driver’ was essentially all that was available (according to the official story) to:
    -break apart the steel superstructure,
    -to laterally project out all those massive components at high velocity
    -and to grind the majority of the other material (glass, concrete, plasterboard, furniture etc.) into a fine dust.
    Yet we know from the observed video showing the smooth unbroken acceleration of the top section, that most of its potential energy was converted into kinetic energy. Where did the energy come from to do all that destructive work?
    If only there was a real world example of a robust self supporting structure exhibiting sudden onset, symmetrical descent into the path of greatest resistance, showing smooth jolt free acceleration, and suffering global destruction- that might lead me to question again something that was settled in my mind (after much deliberation) some years ago. If only NIST had modelled the collapse of the towers past the point of initiation. If only the details of their WTC7 computer model was released to the public for scrutiny and replication….
    I can see that Cole’s experiments are not an accurate scaled down mock up of the towers, but I think he does demonstrate a principle at work that applies to all scales. If the “floors” were spaced at 3m intervals there would more likely be an overall acceleration I agree (although it would most likely have measurable jolts). However, the pile driver hypothesis of the WTC has it that all the vertical supports were broken apart by the falling top section as well, so there would be no 3m gaps in which to accelerate, or have I got that wrong?
    I do believe that in another context, this would all be common sense, i.e. that the physics are simple and well established even if the precise calculations might be complex.

  • Clark

    Mog, I’d posted the above before I saw your 18 Mar 11:09 am comment.

    I think the falling material didn’t need to break apart the vertical support because it went down through the floor structures. The floors weren’t very strong compared with the vertical columns; each one only had to support office contents. Additionally they were large area and horizontal, only supported at the core and at the perimeter. Without checking figures I think the design specified that each should support about four times its expected load, most of which was its own weight. Of course if construction standards had been broken or if materials had aged faster than expected the floor structures might have been weaker than that, but they wouldn’t have been stronger.

    In the less challenging of the two collapses, the topmost, intact example of these big, flat-area floors was suddenly loaded with over ten floors worth of debris and rubble from above; it really doesn’t surprise me that it failed, such that the next was suddenly overloaded, and the next and so on, the debris/rubble load increasing as it went.

    It would be different if the vertical support had been evenly distributed throughout the plan of the building but it wasn’t; vertical support was all concentrated at the core and the perimeter. “Through the floors” was not a path of least resistance, but it was a path of low resistance relative to the core and the perimeter.

    But the floor structures served another critical function. They held the perimeter at an even distance from the core, thus keeping the perimeter upright and planar; ie. they maintained the perimeter in its optimum geometry.

    With the floors stripped out by falling debris the perimeter lacked lateral ie. horizontal rigidity. In the videos you can see huge, flattish sections of perimeter leaning and falling outward, the top swinging out, the bottom being the pivot. You wrote:

    “the pile driver hypothesis of the WTC has it that all the vertical supports were broken apart by the falling top section as well…”

    Well I haven’t read the pile-driver hypothesis directly, but if by “broken apart” they meant “pushed outward” rather than “crushed downward” or “smashed to pieces” then I suppose it makes sense. The perimeter was a tube, so as all that rubble fell within it, its tube shape would have been confining it, constraining its tendency to spread. By equal and opposite reaction the rubble would have been pushing outwards against the perimeter which, except at the collapse-front, had lost the floor structures which had tied it to the core – so again, the “top swinging out, the bottom being the pivot” effect I referred to earlier.

    Such “swinging out” also seems to be nearly all of what gets called “lateral ejection”; check the videos – hardly any material actually rises above its point of departure, apart from dust. And the debris didn’t mostly end up as dust; the rubble pile was six storeys deep, ranging from dust to multi-floor sections of perimeter. The reason the collapse looks smooth is scale; those tower were nearly half a kilometre tall; reduced by a factor of about 1000 to a typical computer screen we’ve got well under ten pixels per floor!

    – – – – – – – –

    I’m not sure what to make of the absence of similar collapses as there is also an absence of similar circumstances. The Twin Towers broke all records for height when they were constructed, and were still among the highest buildings in the world. There have been many examples of skyscrapers withstanding major fire, but not with many of the vertical support columns severed and even more with their fireproofing stripped away. Maybe buildings hit by missiles in a war zone would supply examples, but the US (which does the vast majority of such war-making) prefers to attack poorer countries, so we don’t tend to see really ambitious skyscrapers hit by missiles – if you know of any examples, please post them.

    I don’t make any comparisons between the Twin Towers and Building 7 because (1) the collapses were completely different, and (2) Building 7 had a decidedly weird construction, almost hollow around ground level with the core supported on a truss system between five and seven floors up, straddling old and new foundations. Building 7 seems a much better candidate for being brought down by explosives, especially with the reported and recorded sounds immediately preceding the onset of collapse.

    • Fwl

      Clark I appreciate you are thinking aloud but are you having a change of mind on WTC7?

      • Clark

        Fwl, my opinion on building 7 remains the same; weird construction of a building bodged onto old foundations intended for a building of less than half the size, which lead to its core being supported by a truss system some five to seven stories above a big, mostly hollow base. It would have been relatively easy to bring it down in the manner recorded by use of explosives precisely because its construction made that sort of collapse more likely – on the other hand, it better than doubled its specification for withstanding fire. So difficult to say, really. I don’t rule out collapse, pre-rigged charges, a sudden, opportunist demolition or just a big truck-bomb in that big, hollow loading zone.

        The weirdly symmetrical collapse – what to make of it? Deliberate destruction of buildings doesn’t have to be neat, the twin Towers’ collapses weren’t neat, so if Building 7 was pre-rigged, why wasn’t it rigged for a messy, asymmetric collapse? “To minimising damage to surrounding buildings” seems far-fetched, especially as it did damage other buildings.

        I can see a point in bringing it down symmetrically to provoke suspicion that the Twin Towers were also demolished.

  • Clark

    P.S: I think it’ll be decades before NIST’s computer simulation details for Building 7 are released. I’m almost certain that there really is a cover-up about that, as there are about many aspects of 9/11. But we shouldn’t, indeed mustn’t, assume that all the cover-ups are covering up One Big Fact.

  • Clark

    I’m reading Why Indeed did the Twin Towers Completely Collapse by Dr Steven E. Jones, an updated version – the most recent date in the paper seems to be 2/19/2008 (mm/dd/yyyy). I’m currently on page 16, where I’ve found this:

    “initiating the thermite reaction requires temperatures well above those achieved by burning jet fuel or office materials”

    I didn’t know that. It means that pre-ignition of cutter-charges by fires cannot be used against pre-rigged thermite theories – I used that argument some time back. However, that doesn’t apply to thermate because it contains sulphur which is flammable at much lower temperature.

    So far this paper has dwelt upon molten metal. It must be remembered that there were sources of energy in the buildings in addition to potential energy, office contents and aviation fuel. There was mains power (does anyone know the various failure times?), racks of lead-acid batteries for uninterruptible power supplies, and mentioned in this paper, aircraft debris including much aluminium and bottles of oxygen. I think lithium batteries were already common in 2001 as well. Probably other things we haven’t thought of yet, too.

  • Clark

    OK I’m on page 18 having finished section 1 and I’ll leave it there for now.

    Stepping back to look at the bigger picture I ask myself why?. Why go to all the trouble and risk of discovery of lacing the Twin Towers with, presumably, thousands of thermite charges with heatproof radio/magnesium igniters?* Even if whatever hit the towers weren’t passenger aircraft, both towers were left with huge gashes across the impact faces, exit wounds implying severe internal damage, and raging fires. Both buildings clearly became write-offs at that instant. If an aircraft or whatever hadn’t managed to hit one of the towers the perpetrators would have had to demolish the building anyway to prevent discovery of the charges; that would have been really messy – one collapse supposedly caused by an aircraft impact, the other by supposedly al-Qaeda pre-planting copious bombs. You also can’t argue that deliberate demolition was to save the cost of demolition.

    (*Oops regarding my 9:13 pm comment; the igniters would still be susceptible to pre-ignition by fires even if thermite itself isn’t.)

    I still regard gravity-driven collapses much more likely than pre-rigging with thermite but I still don’t have a good explanation for red hot steel seen extracted from the rubble; molten metal reported in the sub-levels may not have been steel and that is easier to account for.

    I’m wondering if a chimney effect involving lift-shafts in the core could account for higher temperatures fires than have so far been considered by either NIST or the Truth Movement. Cleaner fumes from a smaller, hotter region of fire near the core could have escaped detection due to black smoke from the fuel-rich diffuse fire surrounding it.

    I hope no one objects that I’ve commented several times; I’m trying to display my thought process for scrutiny, and to help myself remember as I go along.

    • lysias

      Destroy the buildings using multiple methods and add some red herrings (nanothermite?) for good measure, and defenders of the official story will have some avenue of attack against all dissenters.

    • Fwl

      As to your question of why would anyone want to collapse the buildings as opposed to just fly planes into them – the answer is presumably for the huge dramatic effect, which really was thought stopping. Of course that shocking narrative and the images were only presented re WTC1&2 but not 7. WTC7 was also shocking but without a plane (maybe one had been expected) the images confused and detracted from the simplicity of what was being shown on WTC1 & 2.That is strange. Three buildings fall but only two are looked at by the majority. Two are looked at over and over but one was ignored. Was WTC7 ignored because without a plane it was less of a story? Or because something went wrong and / or it confused the main message?

      WTC 7 has been said to have had some pretty interesting documents in it which may not have been backed up elsewhere.

  • Clark

    I’ll post this here to remind myself; page 22:

    Horizontal puffs or plumes of smoke and debris are observed emerging from WTC-7 on upper floors, in regular sequence, just as the building starts to collapse…

    Thus, squibs as observed during the collapse of WTC 7 going up the side of the building in rapid sequence provide additional significant evidence for the use of pre-placed explosives…

    I haven’t found the video referred to and I think that the link given at the start of the paper is dead, so if anyone knows where to find a copy please post a link.

    Paul, sorry I haven’t got back to scouring my browser history yet. I haven’t forgotten; it’s just a tedious task that I’ve already spent ages on and haven’t been in the right mood for.

  • Paul Barbara

    No sweat, Clark.
    Those video links I posted for you are far more important than looking for the link re Condoleeza Rice & Colin Powell.

  • mog

    That is a lot of reply.
    I think it is accurate to describe the towers’ superstructure as being completely fragmented. The videos of the collapse, I would say, clearly show massive steel components being ejected with a significant laterally accelerating force- David Chandler has done work on this. The photos of the debris pile show the extent of the fragmentation of the steel structure, and its distribution within the WTC plaza, the pile being domed rather than pyramidal in shape as the destruction was absolute.

    Dust, we know was extensive. I have not read a reliable estimate of the proportion of the friable materials that were reduced to the fine dust that spread across to New Jersey almost. Dust would be expected in a gravity driven collapse, but it is a matter of degree I would say, and that clearly huge amounts of energy were transferred into breaking apart the buildings’ contents. Explosive events are known to produce large amounts of dust.
    I rarely have time to engage in conversations like this, but interested that you are reading Jones’ paper. There are many aspects of the events at WTC that beg for explanation (the metal spheroids, the apparently thermitic red/grey chips, the ‘squibs’ many floors below the collapse front, the improbable speeds of the aircraft, the heat of the rubble pile and the longevity of the fires there, the fragmentation and disappearance of human bodies and the bone fragments found on nearby roof tops, the eye witness testimony of large explosions far away from the fire zone etc etc). So many pieces of evidence fit the known phenomena of explosive demolitions, at the same time we know that no steel frame high rises have ever collapsed completely for any other reason.

    If we can say that there is no conclusive evidence of demolition that has been tested in an adversarial setting that satisfies all parties, we can also say that the controlled demolition hypothesis answers or opens avenue to addressing all the discrepancies. Instead we have NIST reports that are not peer reviewed, that are the epitome of confirmation bias even to the point of ignoring basic protocols of testing for energetic materials, that we can definitely say ignored evidence and that rely upon hidden data to back up there conclusions. As Lynne Margulis said, “You cannot do science in secret”.
    The idea that explosive events were part of the buildings’ demise was the original theory. The reporters on the ground, the fire crews who got out alive, the first press conferences all said the same things, that there was an almighty explosion then the tower came down, and ask “could there have been bombs in the buildings?”. Why wasn’t this hypothesis pursued in earnest?

  • mog

    Just a more general comment to add.
    I remember my first encounters with ‘911 truth material’ and for the most part I considered it a distraction. I was involved in the protests against the Iraq invasion at the time, and even when learning about the PNAC aims and such like, I thought that the idea of deep state insiders being involved in the plot seemed to me to lie in the realms of fantasy. I found the notion of controlled demolition at WTC offensively absurd.
    That all changed when I saw the footage of WTC7. Like Danny Jowenko, I couldn’t comprehend what I was seeing except in terms of a controlled demolition : it simply showed all the characteristics that are unique to demolition, and was indistinguishable from acknowledged demolitions.
    There followed for me a roughly two year period where I was cognitively torn between two things. On the one hand the anti-establishment left consensus which rejected all serious inquiry into the issue and which also formed my social and political ‘surroundings’; and on the other hand the need for a coherent explanation for the many pieces of evidence that I was reading about (most especially regarding WTC7).
    Since that time I have sought out contrary views to challenge the conclusions that I had come to, only to be further convinced of my position by the weakness of the arguments coming back. Aaronovich, Jonathan Kay, Popular mechanics, ‘Debunking 911 Myths’, none of it adds up to much more than an arrogant wave of the hand.
    I now think that the question of some form of complicity is a slap in the face obvious no brainer, and that studying the subject reveals the irrationality at the heart of our culture, as well as the thriving roles of taboo and myth in modern society.

  • Chris Jones

    It’s been recommended that I post here regarding 9/11. Is there anyone here that can credibly summarise why they don’t believe that 9/11 was an inside job? I’d very much like to hear any credible evidence refuting what I believe is overwhelming evidence that 911 was an inside job so that it can be properly analyzed. Cheers

    • John Spencer-Davis

      If you believe there is overwhelming evidence that 9/11 was an inside job, please trot it out so that we can look it over. He who asserts must prove, after all. Thanks.

      • Herbie

        To be fair, JSD, The US govt has far from proved their account of what happened on 911.

        Those who find their account lacking, only have to point to the holes in that account.

        And that’s the correct way to proceed.

          • Herbie

            He’s asking someone to post an alternative account.

            I’m saying that the first principle is that one simply question the official account.

            That’s the sensible approach.

            They’re the ones who are asking us to believe their account, and at a heavy price for civil liberties.

            Surely you’re not suggesting that we simply accept the govt account.

            Their account is the one that needs testing.

          • John Spencer-Davis

            I appreciate that, but surely if there is overwhelming evidence that it was an inside job then it will be an easy matter to set it out. I would be interested to see it.

            By the way, how do I reply to you if there is no reply button, do you know? Thanks.

          • John Spencer-Davis

            I don’t really want to go and look at websites and youtube videos. I am able to find those for myself, plenty of them. If Chris Jones has overwhelming evidence that 9/11 was an inside job, then it should not be difficult to set it out here. Say, the ten strongest pieces of evidence that it was an inside job, in descending order of importance. Then I can look at them one at a time, and assess them myself, for plausibility.

          • Herbie


            In this case, you just reply to yourself above, and it keeps it inline.

            I’ve posted Ry Dawson’s account, where he sifts the evidence, demolishes the govt account and those of the many weirdoes in this field.

            It’s quite a complex business to present an alternative account from the outside, and that’s why I advise simply challenging the govt account.

            That’s the correct way to proceed.

            Dawson says that the greatest challenge to his work is not the govt account itself, which fades away quite easily when compared to the actual evidence, but rather the plethora of weirdoes taking about thermite and lasers and all the rest of the disinfo garbage, popularised by Alex Jones, Judy Woods and sundry others.

          • Herbie


            Chris Jones doesn’t say that he has an alternative account. He’s asking for an alternative account.

            I suggest you watch the Dawson video.

            Evidence based, best of bunch.

          • John Spencer-Davis

            Aha, thank you.

            I get the feeling that I am talking with the wrong person. I quite agree that the official account should be rigorously analysed for plausibility, and the fact that there are holes and discrepancies in it means that it can be viewed with scepticism. I have no objection to that at all. At the risk of repeating myself to the point of boredom, Chris Jones claims that there is overwhelming evidence that it was an inside job. That is a different matter to saying that the official account simply does not add up. Do you agree with that proposition? I am simply asking for this overwhelming evidence, let’s see it. It cannot be that difficult to set it out.

          • Herbie

            So let Chris Jones produce the key points.

            It’s not my field.

            I was simply trying to be helpful by citing the Ry Dawson video, because he takes his work seriously and has a sound understanding of the history and evidence.

            I’l watch it again myself to see is there any way of reducing the thing to text.

            But again, it wouldn’t be my approach.

          • John Spencer-Davis

            I don’t want you to think I am ungrateful for your posting, and I will undoubtedly watch the video myself. Many thanks.

            I’ll start the matter myself. Here are the ten strongest pieces of evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.

            1/ The presence of thermite in the 9/11 ruins. An impacting plane would not be able to produce thermite. Therefore, there must have been another cause, as well as the impacting planes, for the collapse of the buildings. The most plausible is explosives within the buildings themselves.

            That was extremely crude, but you see the point? How long did it take me to set that out? And I am not very well versed in these evidences.

      • Chris Jones

        The evidence proves beyond all reasonable doubt that 911 was an inside job. There is by now also mainstream acceptance of this based on overwhelming evidence. Interestingly, those who try to claim that it wasn’t an inside job have become the conspiracy theorists (or technically the anti conspiracy theorists)If there is a case against 911 being an inside job, based on credible evidence, then I would very much like to see it if anyone’s offering

        • John Spencer-Davis

          “The evidence proves beyond all reasonable doubt that 911 was an inside job. There is by now also mainstream acceptance of this based on overwhelming evidence.”

          So please, may I request you to summarise this overwhelming evidence as succinctly as possible? If it is as overwhelming as you say, then it should be easy to set it out. Many thanks.

          • Chris Jones

            I’m sure this thread is full of evidence that helps proves it beyond reasonable doubt JSD. It’s time to do it the proper way round and for those that want to try and disprove 911 was a conspiracy and inside job to make their case here so that it can be considered and refuted with the available evidence for. I would like to request yourself or anyone else who is interested to summarise why they believe this wasn’t an inside job and a conspiracy

      • Herbie

        I’m watching it now.

        The first thing he addresses is the reports of many more explosions after the initial impact.

        He cites the evidence from the time.

        The second thing he addresses is the arrests of the Israelis with bombs.

        Again he cites the evidence from the time.

        Perhaps we could do a collaborative and detail his evidence.

1 85 86 87 88 89 134

Comments are closed.