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).
Gage and Harrit are not interested in debate only with promulgating their own looney theories. Discussion of alternatives was blocked on the AE911 site and that includes the no planes “death ray” tripe. A debate between those two groups would provide far more belly laughs.
Please tell us what YOU believed happened on 9/11. Do you accept the official explanation in its entirety? If not, where do you differ? If you are here in good faith, it is not a difficult question. If we ‘conspiraloons’ have got it so wrong, please tell us what you believe actually DID happen.
9/11: CIA chief defends hushed-up 28 pages because of ‘inaccurate, un-vetted’ info:
Sounds like not even CIA Director Brennan believes the 9/11 Commission Report.
This is all a ‘Red Herring’. So many people are questioning the Govt. ‘Official Narrative’ that they throw a few tid-bits into the equation, just to muddy the waters, to keep the ‘Sheeple’ focused on them ‘Rag Heads’, rather than the REAL perps.
@ Kempe May 1, 2016 at 14:59
‘Gage and Harrit are not interested in debate only with promulgating their own looney theories. Discussion of alternatives was blocked on the AE911 site and that includes the no planes “death ray” tripe. A debate between those two groups would provide far more belly laughs.’
I see, they ban ‘no planes’ and ‘death ray’ tripe. Do you blame them? I will state openly that I do not believe the ‘Official Conspiracy Theory’ that the Boeings they said hit the Towers, or the Pentagon, are true. But I have no problem with the A&E site banning such ‘theories’.
They deal solely with scientific, physical and chemical FACTS, no speculation.
They are not quite into ‘belly laughs’, but I’m sure you and jokers like you would give them a few belly laughs with your ‘tripe’.
Next?
” They deal solely with scientific, physical and chemical FACTS ”
Like WTC falling faster than freefall? Riiiight..
This is mainly for Clark, but it’s good stuff for any ‘doubters’:
BARRY JENNINGS
Reached 25th floor
‘Only me and Mr. Hess was up there’ (Michael Hess was Senior Managing Director of Giuliani Partners LLC).
Barry Jennings’ full interview in ‘Fabled Enemies’:
‘Fabled Enemies’ (Jason Bermas);
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28tE0fKpISM
(Barry Jennings’ interview starts at about 1:19:40 into the video)
(CIA ordered FBI to surround Bldg. 7 after collapse; Govt. agents watched construction workers through binoculars as they searched (for computers, safes etc.):
‘..there was an explosion. The explosion was beneath me. All the lights went out. So when the explosion happened, it blew us back…’ at 1:24:20
…they came twice. They couldn’t get us out, because they couldn’t find us. Why? Because building 2 fell, then building 1 fell…’ at 1:23:41
So, they were in trouble, with explosions, BEFORE the Twin Towers fell!! So, no debris damage!! But they did hear explosions in Building 7, BEFORE the Twin Towers fell!!!
‘..I was trapped in there for several hours – all this time I was hearing all kinds of explosions – all this time I am hearing explosions..’ at 1:25:02
Isn’t that clear enough???
‘… and they finally took us down to the lobby..and I asked him, I said, ‘where are we’? He said ‘this was the lobby’ and I said to him ‘you gotta be kidding me’.. it’s total ruins.. It was a huge lobby, and for me to see what I saw, it’s unbelievable…’ at 1:25:20
‘..and the firefighter who took us down said ‘Don’t look down’..and you know we were stepping over people – we were stepping over people….’ at 1:25.44
But the ‘Official Narrative’ says ‘no one died in Building 7’!!!
(video pics of fake ‘OBL’ at 8:52, 13:39, 1:11:23 and 1:11:34-39)
(video pic of real OBL: 9:32: 1:42:16)
Cynthia McKinney at 9:46
‘Israeli Operatives’ including ‘Dancing Israelis’ and spy rings starts at 21:45
Israeli detainees: ”Evidence linking these Israeli’s to 9-11 is classified. I cannot tell you about evidence that has been gathered. It is classified information.” at 24:57
Israeli’s questioned: ”Stated they served in military intelligence; electronic surveillance intercept and/or explosive ordinance units” at 26:35
”Continuity of Government’ (CoG)(‘Shadow Government’) at 1:11:44:
Here is a ten-minute Alex Jones’ video, with part transcript:
‘9/11 Key Witness Murdered?’:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpqYftxb1oc
‘..we interviewed him for ‘Loose Change Final Cut’..word got out about it..he begged us, saying he’d been threatened, saying his pension had been threatened, his job had been threatened and other threats – he wouldn’t specify what those were, if he didn’t shut up..’ at 6:40
Uploaded on 2 Nov 2008
Shamelessly “borrowed” from NufffRespect with many thanx: PLEASE RATE, COMMENT & SHARE 🙂
Key Witness to WTC 7 Explosions Dead at 53
Emergency coordinator for the New York Housing Authority, and key 9/11 eyewitness, Barry Jennings has passed away with controversy about WTC7 still hot as the BBC hit piece and NIST report have been released to counter Jennings exclusive testimony of explosions inside Building 7. Jennings passed away at age 53 from circumstances not yet disclosed.
A spokesperson for the Housing Authority has now confirmed his death, after weeks of rumors circulating online, but refused to give any further details. Several other individuals at the Housing Authority also confirmed that they knew Barry Jennings, and that indeed he had passed away about a month ago. No other details were available.
No one has yet been able to contact anyone in the Jennings family and the official cause of death is not yet known, but online comments have reported the date of death as August 19, 2008.
It is very unusual that a prominent — and controversial 9/11 witness would die only days before the release of NISTs report on WTC7 and shortly after a firestorm erupted over his testimony that he heard explosions inside the building prior to collapse of either tower and that there were dead bodies in the buildings blown-out lobby.
The BBC aired The Third Tower in July in attempt to debunk Barry Jennings account which is both contradictory and damaging to the official 9/11 story by making issue over whether or not he said he saw dead bodies in the lobby.
Yet Jennings own statement in an exclusive interview with Dylan Avery and Jason Bermas which has not been denied was: The fire fighter who took us down kept saying, Don’t look down. And I said, Why. And we were stepping over people you know, you can feel when you’re stepping over people.
Now the release of Jason Bermas Fabled Enemies is giving further exposure to Jennings controversial account. The film features a full interview with Barry Jennings, as well as the statements he and Michael Hess, who was also trapped with him inside WTC7, made to news media on the day of the attacks.
Barry Jennings reiterated in the exclusive interview his confusion over the explanation for WTC7s collapse given that he clearly heard explosions inside the building.
That interview was not released until June 2008 at the request of Mr. Jennings, who had received numerous threats to his job and asked that it be left out of Loose Change: Final Cut because of those threats.
Jennings statements have lit fire to questions about what really caused the sudden collapse of WTC7 just as NIST had hoped the release of their report would quash widespread beliefs that the building was brought down by controlled demolition.
News of Jennings death comes on the heels of losing another 9/11 hero and eyewitness Kenny Johannemann, who reportedly committed suicide 12 days before the seventh anniversary of 9/11. Johannemann is credited with saving at least one mans life on 9/11 and was also a witness to explosions in the towers.
NISTs report, as well as that of the 9/11 Commission (which did not even mention WTC7), completely ignored statements from the building leaseholder Larry Silverstein as well as numerous police, fire fighters and other eyewitnesses who have testified that they were warned about the buildings collapse and told to get back. One rescue worker even heard a countdown for the buildings implosion.
The truth about WTC7 will come out, and Barry Jennings testimony will not be in vain.
Please contact [email protected] if you have any information about the circumstances of Barrys death or any other reports. We extend our condolences to any family or friends reading this for their loss.’
I went to quite a bit of work finding the ‘points of interest’; hope someone checks the stuff out.
So how many hours before the collapse of Building 7 was Jennings hearing explosions?
Why should there have been explosions within WTC7 before either of the other towers fell if the troubles within 7 are said to be attributable to debris from the fallen towers.
At what time was the Disaster response room in the 25th floor ( which Jennings and Hess reported) evacuated, and who was in there when it was evacuated ie before Jennings and Hess showed up, and have they ever been interviewed?
I saw the Jennings interview by chance around 2004 or 5 and I wad dumb struck. I hadn’t even heard of WTC7 before then. I mentioned it once or twice and I got a bug “don’t you know that is taboo you fool”look.
Remembering this I’d better shut up and head back to the dark ages.
I got a big look not a bug…..but hey maybe bug too!
First tower collapsed at 0959, WTC 7 didn’t collapse until 1721 so that would be at least seven hours and twenty two minutes!
Of course the tin foil hat brigade doesn’t worry about how a series of explosions could contribute to a building falling over seven hours afterwards in the same way that the detonation of a “mini-nuke” in the basement could cause a building to collapse from the top downwards or thermite could somehow keep steel molten for five to seven weeks.
Nobody has corroborated Jennings claims of bodies in the lobby of WTC 7 and nobody present in the building has been reported missing by next of kin but then I suppose they’re all “vicsims” and crisis actors anyway.
Kempe, the timings you give are correct but please don’t antagonise with comments about “tin foil hatters” etc. It polarises the argument and provokes people to reject evidence.
Fwl, officially, Building 7 collapsed as a result of uncontained fire. Personally, I don’t think anyone knows what happened to Building 7. I’m toying with the thought that the primary designer of Building 7 was secretly obsessed with Apoptosis; maybe his mother was too strict about making him tidy up his toys.
Paul Barbara, May 3, 22:35:
So destruction of a building is a far from ideal way of destroying records. Evidence of CIA activities could have landed in FBI jurisdiction, and the CIA does all sorts of illegal stuff.
That, or all FBI officers involved in the search were perfect conspirators, any senior FBI involved having guaranteed immunity to professional rivalry and personal ambition…
Sorry, all too messy. A collapsed building provides a good excuse for being unable to produce records on demand, but it doesn’t provide secure destruction of records.
@ Clark May 3, 2016 at 22:46
‘So how many hours before the collapse of Building 7 was Jennings hearing explosions?’
Quite a few, I should say, as the first explosion, on the stairs as he and Hess descended, was just BEFORE the first Tower fell.
Thanks. And is this evidence for the controlled demolition of Building 7?
@ Kempe May 4, 2016 at 06:54
‘First tower collapsed at 0959, WTC 7 didn’t collapse until 1721 so that would be at least seven hours and twenty two minutes!
Of course the tin foil hat brigade doesn’t worry about how a series of explosions could contribute to a building falling over seven hours afterwards in the same way that the detonation of a “mini-nuke” in the basement could cause a building to collapse from the top downwards or thermite could somehow keep steel molten for five to seven weeks.
Nobody has corroborated Jennings claims of bodies in the lobby of WTC 7 and nobody present in the building has been reported missing by next of kin but then I suppose they’re all “vicsims” and crisis actors anyway.’
The building didn’t ‘fall over’, it imploded and fell largely in it’s own footprint.
‘..Of course the tin foil hat brigade doesn’t worry about how a series of explosions could contribute to a building falling over seven hours afterwards…’ Why should truth seekers ‘worry’ about the ‘hows and whys’? We report on a man’s testimony, which he started stating on record from day one.
If you are calling Barry Jenning’s a liar, that is your problem, not ours.
Why you are muddying the waters with ‘mini-nukes’, which are not widely believed to have been used by the 9/11 truth community, is just ‘par for the course’ for Kempe; no alternative theories, just time-wasting bs.
“The building didn’t ‘fall over’ ”
I never said it did. It fell downwards under the effect of gravity; like most things.
@ Clark May 4, 2016 at 11:00
‘Paul Barbara, May 3, 22:35:
“CIA ordered FBI to surround Bldg. 7 after collapse; Govt. agents watched construction workers through binoculars as they searched (for computers, safes etc.”
So destruction of a building is a far from ideal way of destroying records. Evidence of CIA activities could have landed in FBI jurisdiction, and the CIA does all sorts of illegal stuff.
That, or all FBI officers involved in the search were perfect conspirators, any senior FBI involved having guaranteed immunity to professional rivalry and personal ambition…’
Sorry, all too messy. A collapsed building provides a good excuse for being unable to produce records on demand, but it doesn’t provide secure destruction of records.’
Who the heck said collapsing a building was ‘a good way to secure destruction of records? Of course it’s not, which is why the CIA got their buddies in the FBI to provide security round and in the site.
Only a very simple-minded dolt would believe that all FBI or CIA are evil swine; but unfortunately many are.
The Perps had all the time they needed (at least a year) to plan who would be involved in the clean up, security of the site, and who would remove the ‘debris’ (aka ‘evidence’). Interestingly, the same Demolition firm were involved in the 9/11 clean up as cleaned up (removed the evidence) of the Oklahoma City ‘False Flag’ op.
So your take is that the story of the CIA getting the FBI to surround the building debris and keep the clean up workers under surveillance is not true, purely because it doesn’t seem probable to you??
I dunno who said it; are you denying it has been said? Don’t you go for that bit or something? You can’t expect me to keep tabs on all the different aspects various people accept and reject. You think Building 7 was deliberately demolished, don’t you? So who demolished it and why?
The thing I find so frustrating is that I really want to know what happened to Building 7 but I always get bogged down because the field is awash with partisan rhetoric; most people’s conclusions long since came to rest in one of a few conflicting camps, and now little remains but in-fighting.
There seem to be funny rules to this in-fighting, and I don’t even know who makes them. I suppose we all do; we reach some kind of underlying subconscious consensus regarding modes of disagreement, suspicion and disrespect, and who constitutes a legitimate target. Certainly some kind of very unsatisfactory stability has become established.
Please pardon my mad ramblings, but increasingly I find myself thinking this way. Interpersonal communication can seem like silent slapstick films in which pointless fights and revenge arise from misunderstanding and thoughtlessness. This, it seems, is human nature. We can watch the film and see these people becoming enemies when they’ve no need to, but that’s exactly what we do here of our own free will. How could such creatures ever fix anything?
I suspect a lot of the reason it is so hard to figure out what happened on 9/11 is that the CIA left behind a lot of red herrings, misleading clues, like the sightings of a false Oswald in the months before the JFK assassination.
Cyclic argument, can’t use it. You need to prove specific red herrings and present evidence to show that the CIA planted them.
We know they planted them in the case of the JFK assassination. Discussed in John Newman’s book “Oswald and the CIA”. Shouldn’t that put us on guard for the possibility here?
Yes, be on guard for everything, including circular argument, of which there is far too much surrounding 9/11, which is how we get all the hostility between the camps of mutually exclusive theories.
Paul, what do you make of Jennings exclamation “You looked one way the building was there, you looked the other and the building was gone” – or something similar – you could transcribe… Jennings speaks and gesticulates with such conviction at that point; he’s obviously relating directly from impression. His actual words are ambiguous, but he’s clearly relating a big, sudden change.
I transcribed parts of the Jennings interview months back but no one would discuss it with me at the time so I deleted my notes. Maybe I should watch it again. Paul, do you find Jennings’ various descriptions of the same events to be internally consistent, because I thought that they conflicted. I am not questioning Jennings’ honesty. Do you have sudden traumatic memories you can relate this to? I do; a car crash I was in as a passenger. My very spontaneous statement to a police officer immediately after the crash was incorrectly used to absolve the drunken driver of the oncoming vehicle, so please tread carefully as this has a personal dimension for me.
I think I’ve got the answer. The 9/11 attacks were crowd-sourced.
@
Clark
May 4, 2016 at 12:46
“Who the heck said collapsing a building was ‘a good way to secure destruction of records?”
I dunno who said it; are you denying it has been said? Don’t you go for that bit or something? You can’t expect me to keep tabs on all the different aspects various people accept and reject. You think Building 7 was deliberately demolished, don’t you? So who demolished it and why?’
‘..I dunno who said it; are you denying it has been said?..’
No, I’m not denying it has been said. It has been said that the sun revolves around the earth. But I’m the one debating with you, and I am not saying it nor using that argument.
‘..You think Building 7 was deliberately demolished, don’t you? So who demolished it and why?’..’
I do believe it was deliberately demolished, but not from a hunch or speculation, but because I accept experts opinions (and yes, I’m aware that ‘experts’ who support the government line say it wasn’t, but they will not debate the issue with those who say it was controlled demolition. You see, that is the big difference; the govt. and their apologists will not debate the issue – they issue statements, diktats, and refuse to elaborate or answer questions, or release their ‘computer simulation’ info, just the so-called ‘results’.
Here is the best video of Danny Jowenko’s take on bldg. 7; I hadn’t seen it before I just searched for it to illustrate my point to you (though of course I was aware of his certainty it was a controlled demolition.
Check out Danny Jowenko’s credentials; and he died in an extremely suspicious one-car crash just when the subject of bldg. 7’s collapse was being re-ignited (re ‘suspicious car crashes’, search ‘Boston Brakes Assassinations’). Here’s the Jowenko interview: http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/07/23/dutch-demolition-expert-danny-jowenko-dies-in-car-crash/
The CIA also had a big office in WTC7: CBS News: Report: CIA Lost Office In WTC (Nov. 5, 2001):
One wonders if that unidentified other federal agency that the CIA was operating under the cover of was in fact the SEC. The CIA is known to take a great interest in the doings of Wall Street.
” I accept experts opinions (and yes, I’m aware that ‘experts’ who support the government line say it wasn’t, ”
So really you’re saying you accept the opinions of the “experts” you want to agree with. I’ve never seen any attempt at serious debate from the conspiracist camp, just evasion, derision and a stubborn refusal to accept any facts that contradict pre-concieved convictions. Little wonder nobody will waste time debating with them. We’ve been going over the same points for nearly 15 years with no progress except that every few years a new conspiracy theory emerges even more fantastic than the one before. Each one supported by “experts” and the usual incontrovertible evidence.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-shermer/911-truthers-a-pack-of-li_b_84154.html
So, what records were destroyed in WTC 7, why were they so important, why weren’t there insurance copies at a different location and why was destroying a whole building deemed easier than just “accidentally” sending them off to be shredded which is what’s been done in the past?
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/09/files-uk-role-cia-rendition-destroyed-diego-garcia-water-damage
‘…So, what records were destroyed in WTC 7, why were they so important, why weren’t there insurance copies at a different location and why was destroying a whole building deemed easier than just “accidentally” sending them off to be shredded which is what’s been done in the past?…’
Don’t you know anything, that you have to ask me? What are you doing on this thread, except to waste Truther’s time?
‘Documents and Command Center Destroyed
‘…At the time of its destruction, Building 7 housed documents relating to numerous SEC investigations. The files for approximately three to four thousand cases were destroyed, according to the Los Angeles Times. Among the destroyed documents were ones that may have demonstrated the relationship between Citigroup and the WorldCom bankruptcy. 2
Perhaps even more interesting than the loss of these case files is the fact that WTC 7’s collapse destroyed the OEM’s command center on the 23rd floor…’
http://911review.com/attack/wtc/b7.html
‘…Large numbers of case files for ongoing investigations by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) were reportedly destroyed in the collapse. The Los Angeles Times reported that “substantial files were destroyed” for 3000 to 4000 of the SEC’s cases. The EEOC reported that documents for 45 active cases were destroyed. 3 Before the attack, SEC investigations of corporate fraud by companies such as Enron and Worldcom were the subject of many news reports — reports that virtually vanished in the wake of the attack….’
‘Meet Enron, Bush’s Biggest Contributo’:
http://www.progressive.org/node/1863
Oh, no, not the Enron who was trying to run a pipeline through Afghanistan; who bankrupted California via deals with law school buddy of Al Gore, the corrupt but Teflon-coated Governor of California, Graham Davis Jr.(who bought electricity from Enron for $137 dollars a MGW, and sold it back to Enron for $1 a MGW, and never served time? THAT Enron?
Why on earth would the PTB, including POTUS G.W. Bush, want THOSE records to disappear?
IF anyone is paying you to post here, I hope they halve your wages.
For the benefit of genuine Truth seekers on this thread, here is an important meeting this Saturday in London:
Saturday May 7, 12 noon to 6pm
Bloomsbury Baptist Church, 235 Shaftesbury Ave, London WC2H 8EP
Tickets on door: £15, £5 concessions
9/11 Powder Keg – London Conference
Richard Gage, Niels Harrit, Ian Henshall, Fran Anderson, David Southwell, Brian Maxwell (skype)
1. The suspicious symmetrical building collapses during and after the 911 attacks
2. The Fire Safety scandal implied if the official 911 story is anything like true.
3. The 9/11 paper trail and the “28 pages” campaign: where does the evidence lead?
4. The 9/11 anthrax attacks which turned out to be from the US military-industrial complex.
FACEBOOK: we will keep sending these emails but for updates you can also use our facebook page https://www.facebook.com/reinvestigate911/
Reinvestigate 9/11
http://www.reinvestigate911.org
[email protected]
http://www.youtube.com/user/reinvestigate911org
Kempe.
You have often replied to my scepticism about the events of 9/11, yet you will never answer my reasonable question, “What do YOU believe happened that day?” In the absence of a reply, I can only speculate.
The most plausible reason I can come up with for your refusal to tell us what YOU believe happened on 9/11 is that you don’t believe the official story either. You claim to support some vague “official narrative” but you daren’t define what that is because if it were taken out into the daylight and examined, it would crumble into dust. There is no detailed scenario, no authoritative science, no credible time-line – there is no official narrative! The history of this world-changing event is being written by Holywood, for fuck’s sake.
So you mock and you scorn all alternative theories, always ready to proclaim what didn’t happen but never what did. What sort of person would do that, would hang around a 9/11 thread for years, unfailingly appearing when discussion breaks out again, delivering the official put-down for any given theory, keen to introduce space rays, mini-nukes, holograms, to label people “conspiraloons” and “tin hat brigade”, yet never promote a theory of his own? Why would anyone go to such trouble?
I frequent this thread because I want to know what happened on 9/11. I don’t believe the official narrative and here I can learn from other sceptics. That plainly isn’t your motivation, Kempe. Would you care to explain why you spend so much time hanging out with people you claim to believe are nut-cases?
These are not idle questions. You see, if you are here in good faith, your behaviour is baffling. However, if you have a hidden motive, we can easily speculate what that might be and draw some encouragement that our researches are worthy of such attention.
It’s up to you. If I’ve misjudged you, put me right. Otherwise, thanks for confirming that we truthers are on the right track.
Hear hear Node!
Node
I seriously doubt Kempe is an agent sent here to disrupt the truth. Perhaps you’re having a laugh with that suggestion. Or perhaps you are ignoring the more obvious possibility (you truther you): he is lonely.
The truther jibe was a joke btw. The loniless bit wasn’t.
Well said node, I agree.
I could throw in the an extension to the fundamental question, that being, do you Kempe accept without reservation the published official account of the anthrax attacks that were multiply connected to the events of 911? If not, then why not? and what do you believe happened there?
So if Building 7 was destroyed deliberately, the most direct interpretation is that it was a successful attack against the CIA and the SEC by giga-fraudsters. The CIA being in on it would be second-order collusion, with penetration of the CIA somewhere in-between. Can we agree upon this spectrum?
Paul Barbara, my impression is that you’re not arguing entirely honestly, though I may have missed something, of course. This time I’m worried about this, to me, May 4, 2016 at 11:48:
versus this, to Kempe, May 4, 2016 at 21:09:
Maybe you’ve just been exaggerating a bit for effect or something, but I do find it confusing.
Where is the contradiction? It was not a good way to destroy documents, but it gave them the ‘excuse’ as to how the documents were ‘lost’, whilst allowing them to make sure they did not find their way into the ‘wrong’ hands.
Hmmm, I don’t go for the “make sure they did not find their way into the ‘wrong’ hands” bit. If it was my job to keep information secret, evacuation and total destruction of the building holding it in a very active disaster zone looks like a major security breach to me, no matter how much warning I was given. I’d advise destruction of the data before the event. If I was overruled and ordered to go along with it, I’d have to conclude that my superiors didn’t care that the secrets might leak out.
Paul Barbara, I’ll be busy on Saturday. As it turns out I will be in London and my emotional state seems OK so I expect I’d be able to face meeting Gage and company, but I won’t be finished until 18:00. If you’re off to a pub afterwards I might be able to get there; difficult to say at present.
I don’t know the name of the pub, I believe it’s part of the Fuller Brewery chain, but it’s cheap (extremely rare in the West End and Central London; it’s virtually opposite, with outside tables and some trees, if I remember rightly. You can’t miss it.
I’m a little old geezer, white hair, look like a garden gnome, and will almost certainly be sporting my ‘9/11: Inside Job?’ trademark black t/shirt. Despite the t/shirt, there is no question in my mind re it being an ‘Inside Job’!
Hope to see you.
I probably won’t get there but in case I do there are two photos of me in this directory:
http://www.killick1.plus.com/pictures/
They’re a decade out of date; I have more grey hair and less teeth now.
@ Clark May 5, 2016 at 01:22
‘So if Building 7 was destroyed deliberately, the most direct interpretation is that it was a successful attack against the CIA and the SEC by giga-fraudsters. The CIA being in on it would be second-order collusion, with penetration of the CIA somewhere in-between. Can we agree upon this spectrum?’
Look, I’ve been involved in Human Rights campaigns since the early 1970’s; I KNOW how almost unbelievably evil the CIA, large elements of the military and the whole of the ‘Shadow Government’ that run things for the Banksters and Corporations.
The same with the FBI; just like the CIA, there are good people, but they don’t run the show and get marginalised, or even liquidated.
Five of the major reasons JFK was assassinated were: he was going to disband the CIA, and replace it with an accountable intelligence agency; he was going to retire J Edgar Hoover from the FBI; he had already started printing government dollars, as against the Federal Reserve scam dollars; he was intent on stopping Israel getting nuclear weapons; he was going to properly tax ‘Big Oil’ (instead of the ‘peppercorn taxes’ they had got off with; and he was going to stop the Vietnam War.
The CIA enforce the ‘Rulers of this World’s’ orders; there is no way they were not right at the heart of the 9/11 attack
And the SEC is just as rotten; elected because they will play ball with the crooks at the top of the tree.
I could give you a mile of book titles, but you can’t keep up with the videos I link to, so it would be a waste of time.
Paul, we come down to the definition of names here. Assuming inside collusion, if I ask “did the CIA commit 9/11”, the answer depends upon what we mean by “CIA”.
If the US government ordered the CIA to perform 9/11, the answer is clearly “yes”. However, hypothetically, if Dick Cheney asked someone within the CIA to execute or enable aspects of 9/11, then Cheney and CIA-whoever acted personally, ie. non-governmentally, conspiratorially, and in breach of US law. CIA-whoever’s contribution to the 9/11 attacks was not CIA business, and Dick Cheney’s request was Cheney’s, not the Vice President’s order.
This distinction may seem pedantic but it goes to the heart of a fundamental problem with secret services. Not only are secret services’ activities concealed from the voting public, the secret services are compartmented internally, each officer kept in ingnorance beyond their own operations unless higher levels deem that they have a “need to know”. So not only is external accountability of the entire organisation minimal, but internal oversight of each operation is narrowed, often down to that of a single individual. Such structures are inherently very vulnerable to subversion. Subversion, of course, is the real meaning of “inside job”.
I must also point out a logical error. No matter how evil the CIA or parts of it are, it doesn’t imply that the CIA is necessarily the culprit in any particular crime, which is why solid, direct evidence is required. “He’s a bad’un, he must’ve done it” is bad investigation, just as massaging data is bad science.
Oh I’d probably get on better with books than videos. I’ve been meaning to read some of Nafeez Ahmed’s work.
How about this; I welcome comments by Clarke, Kempe or any others:
http://www1.ae911truth.org/home/550-jowenko.html
‘ Danny Jowenko, 1955-2011: How a Demolition Expert Brought Explosive Attention to 9/11 Truth
Tuesday, 23 August 2011 05:00
Though Danny Jowenko is no longer with us, his expert analysis and fearless testimony remain as an example to those who seek the truth about 9/11
“It starts from below… They have simply blown away columns.”
“This is controlled demolition.”
“A team of experts did this.”
These startling words, spoken by controlled demolition expert Danny Jowenko in 2006, ignited an international discussion over the destruction of WTC Building 7, and added to the professional voices at AE911Truth who have challenged the official explanation. As we mourn Jowenko’s tragic death on July 16, we look back at how his impromptu interview shed light onto one of the greatest mysteries of the 9/11 catastrophe.
Jowenko was the owner of Jowenko Explosieve Demolitie, a controlled demolitions company headquartered in the Netherlands. He had over 30 years of building demolition experience, and his knowledge of explosives was so respected that he was sought as a contributor to the ImplosionWorld production of “A History of Structural Demolition in America”.
Jowenko’s team of demolition specialists has brought down numerous high-rise buildings over the years
In September 2006, Jowenko was interviewed by a Dutch filmmaker, who presented him with footage of the destruction of WTC Building 7. It only took a few moments for Jowenko to conclude that it was the result of a controlled demolition. “This is professional work, without any doubt,” he said.
When Jowenko was told that the building was brought down on 9/11, he sat in amazement. “Are you sure it was the 11th?” he skeptically asked. “That can’t be.”
Undeterred, Jowenko continued to analyze the video. “I think this is obviously a building that has been imploded,” he confidently stated. “If this is the consequence of the WTC towers coming down… that would greatly astonish me. I can’t imagine it. No.”
“ When asked if he stuck by his assertion that Building 7 was brought down with explosives, Jowenko replied with one word: “Absolutely.” ”
After reviewing the WTC 7 structural diagram, Jowenko became even more convinced that the steel-framed skyscraper could not have fallen in a gravitational collapse. “On this,” he said, motioning to the blueprint, “the building will stand… guaranteed.”
The video of Jowenko’s stunning declaration soon went viral, exposing viewers around the world to the explosive evidence surrounding Building 7. His compelling statements were also included with those of other technical professionals in the groundbreaking 9/11: Blueprint for Truth DVD.
“I was encouraged to see Jowenko speak out on this pivotal issue,” said Richard Gage, AIA, founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. “We hope that more demolition experts will question the official explanation and demand a new investigation.”
The stunning footage of the destruction of WTC Building 7 has led technical professionals like Jowenko – and many casual observers – to question the official story
While Jowenko’s initial reaction has received widespread coverage online, it was not his final word on the subject. In 2007, he reaffirmed his conclusions in a phone interview with blogger Jeff Hill. When asked if he stuck by his assertion that Building 7 was brought down with explosives, Jowenko replied with one word: “Absolutely.” He went on to refute NIST’s theory of a fire-induced collapse, stating that “I’ve looked at the drawings, at the construction, and it couldn’t have been done by fire.”
Jowenko’s claim that the Twin Towers were not brought down by controlled demolition is common among observers who have not closely examined these events. The initiation of destruction at the point of airplane impacts and the outward ejection of building materials make the controlled demolition of the Twin Towers difficult to recognize from a distance. However, detailed analyses of the destruction sequence, the discovery of incendiaries in the WTC dust and explosive reports from numerous eyewitnesses have confirmed that the North and South Towers suffered the same fate as Building 7.
The loss of Danny Jowenko is something that no one can change, and he will be dearly missed. At the same time, other technical professionals are following his lead by disputing the official 9/11 story in video interviews. The upcoming documentary, 9/11: Explosive Evidence – Experts Speak Out, features the testimonies of controlled demolition contractors, high rise architects, structural engineers and world-renowned scientists, all of whom are taking a courageous stand for the truth. Jowenko’s voice may be silent, but the call for justice is being raised by thousands of experts around the world.’
Remember, Danny Jowenko had no baggage. he had no point to make. He had never heard of Building 7, or that it collapsed on 9/11. He, an acknowledged world expert on building demolition, had NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER that Building 7 was brought down by controlled demolition.
He died in a one-car ‘accident’, just as interest in Building 7 was about to flare up again.
Check out ‘Boston Brakes’ Assassinations’ (there’s plenty of info on the web; this is just one
site:https://icenirising.wordpress.com/2012/12/13/diana-sir-ranulph-fiennesthe-sas-and-boston-brakes/
‘…Speaking of the ‘Boston brakes’ operation which he believed killed Princess Diana, former SAS sergeant, Dave Cornish, exclusively revealed:
“From the minute the decoy car left the Ritz to the moment the tail car closed in … it was obvious what was going down. Anyone who knows what they’re talking about’ll tell you the same.”
And former Royal bodyguard, Mike Grey, added:
“The operation bore all the classic hallmarks of a security service assassination …. I have no doubts whatsoever, given my twenty years experience in various sections of the security industry, that Diana was assassinated. The security service hallmarks are plain to see.”
But it was former SAS officer and world-famous explorer, Sir Ranulph Fiennes, who offered perhaps the most telling revelation of all.
The ‘Boston brakes’ method of assassination, Fiennes reveals, has been in use since at least the 1980s, and deploys a microchip transceiver which takes over the target vehicle’s steering and brakes at the critical moment.
The method, he says, was first deployed by the CIA in Boston, hence the name. But it has since been adopted by intelligence and security forces the world over, as well as by private security firms and their hit squads.’
Fiennes also confirms that the death by ‘road traffic accident’ of SAS Major Michael Marman in England in 1986 was the result of a Boston brakes operation carried out by a private hit squad known as The Clinic. http://www.consciousape.com/2012/08/21/new-evidence-diana-was-murdered-by-mi6/
But the method can also be used without having prior access to the vehicle.
Same answer as for Gage and co; yes, he said that but lots of other demolition experts didn’t. If he was such a threat surely he’d have been silenced much sooner.
Paul, look, it just doesn’t make sense. Jennings reporting explosions hours before the collapse is nothing like evidence for a controlled demolition – the argument for which is that all vertical support has to be removed simultaneously or the collapse couldn’t have achieved free-fall acceleration. And why make a demolition look like a demolition and then kill people for saying so? If you rigged a building with explosives you could ignite them in any sequence you chose, make the collapse much messier and less suspect.
That’s the thing. Building 7’s symmetrical and dramatic collapse doesn’t make much sense no matter how you look at it. It’s just downright spooky. Maybe the CIA did have it blown, decided that a neat pile of rubble would be easier to guard than a partly burning building and called in a covert explosives team. And then what? Went into raving paranoia mode, classified everything and began a years-long battle until NIST could find enough senior engineers who’d sign off a fabricated report? NIST certainly treated Building 7 like a hot potato, whereas you’d think they’d have been itching with curiosity. And it doesn’t look like a Master Plan either, which would have had NIST’s cover-story worked out in advance.
Conversely, NIST had to investigate the Twin Towers first because many people died there. Building 7 was a curiosity; far more interesting in the dynamics of its collapse, but not a pressing public interest issue – it stood plenty of time for evacuation and (assuming against demolition) if the sprinklers had been working probably wouldn’t have collapsed anyway.
What did Jowenko say about the Twin Towers?
It’s hard to believe people are still “debating” this issue — your comments about blowback say it all. The USA’s long history of supporting despotic governments and “freedom fighters” (who often became anti-U.S. “terrorists”) was the main reason for 9/11. The invasion of Iraq decimated an already-crippled country; killing thousands of civilians and soldiers for no reason unless adding to the number of “terrorists” was the goal.
9/11 Truthers don’t blame ‘blowback’, most say it was an ‘Inside Job’, while a minority say it was ‘Allowed to happen’.
Pure, unadulterated ‘Inside Job’, with some Patsy Arab ‘red herrings’ to muddy the far from pristine waters.
‘Blowback’ is another ‘red herring’.
Paul, why do you assume against any element of blowback? Suicide hijackers seems plausible to me. I don’t insist that it’s all that happened, or the only way those parts could have happened; I certainly don’t consider it proved but I don’t rule it out either; there are certainly extremists who would do that, and statements like Springman’s show that the CIA were getting them into the US. I know the US authorities seemed to just pull the hijackers’ names out of a hat, but so what, even if the names were wrong?
Sure, of course ‘Blowback’ or revenge attacks COULD occur.
But everything about 9/11 screams long-planned ‘False Flag’ op.
I suspect that islamist extremists have changed the game for neocons, hawks etc. These days, they don’t need false flag attacks (with the associated risk of exposure); these so-called islamists do just the things the neocons want anyway, and the repeated devastation of Muslim countries ensures a growing supply.
But assuming the official hijacker story, clearly they could have had high-tech and/or high-ranking help, to get them into and protect them in the USA, and to get them past the US Air Force on the day.
None of which rules out explosives in addition. I was only half joking about crowd-sourcing earlier. I get a feeling that 9/11 was something of a free-for-all, as if it was quite widely known that various US defences would be crippled that day.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxjtOKFErRA
Maxter, yes, Building 7’s collapse looks a lot like a controlled demolition. But, who, how, and why?
“Hey we’re doing this big false flag, the most influential event for decades, and we’re going to pass off the demolition of Building 7 as a spontaneous collapse. Now rig the charges evenly so it comes down nice and neat; I know you can bring it down as messily as you wish but we want it nice and neat. No, don’t worry about NIST; we’re already set up to apply political pressure upon them for the next decade or so, and we can kill anyone else, never a problem…
I am rather doubtful of the 9/11 conspiracy although I am inclined to think there was some kind of intelligence cock-up.I
am also a bit reluctant to get drawn in,but your argument that a ‘messy’-(i.e. convincing) demolition of building seven was just as easy as a planned one is not really specially credible.
A random or chaotic process of collapse is extremely likely in the scenario of a burning building since the fire is almost certainly not going to be ‘orderly’ or symmetrical or evenly distributed. The period of free fall is deeply troublesome because it would be vanishingly small probability for that to occur. I am also not convinced that a chaotic demolition is easy to create without some complicated switching and timing system for individual charges. Apart from which a chaotic fall is more likely to create collateral damage, which it may have been desirable to avoid. If there was a demolition it might have been a hurried affair with no time to create anything but a symmetrical process-which would be the obvious thing to do if it was a ‘planned’ demolition.
Clark you mentioned preferring books to videos. Try anything by former Canadian diplomat and Berkeley Professor of English Peter Dale Scott. He writes on JFK, drugs, Vietnam, 9/11 and the Deep State. If you tire of that he also writes poetry. He is on Amazon and facebook, but I never see his books in bookshops. Quite a few of his essays can be found on line.
What seems like some new stuff about 9/11, from KPFA Berkeley earlier this week:
“Behind The Smoke Curtain: What Happened at The Pentagon on 9/11, What Didn’t, and Why It Matters by Barbara Honegger.”
https://kpfa.org/episode/guns-and-butter-may-11-2016/
Click the ‘Listen’ button. It starts about five minutes in.
Craig, you know better than most how governments can be corrupted, and better than most how black ops work (I would expect, given your background). So, your opinion that the US government or part thereof could not have accomplished 9/11 without either it being stopped or revealed, has to be taken seriously.
I will leave it to others to point out the extraordinary amount of evidence that the official narrative is spurious or simply lacking on key points and focus on the “it couldn’t have been that way” aspect.
America managed to keep the development of the atom bomb completely secret – and that involved 100’s of thousands of people.
Corporations also manage to keep secrets (just look at how senior individuals in totally corrupt banks are never prosecuted).
The power of the MSM now, to sideline certain information by never, ever covering it (like WT7) and thus reducing the impact of the testimony of whistle blowers, is self-evident. To find the testimony of 9/11 whistle blowers like Susan Lindauer and Sibel Edmunds (to name but two) you have to search.
So, in mass consciousness, 9/11 seems ‘impossible’. But is it really so impossible, when the day was filled with ‘drills’? Yes, it would involve a cadre of powerful people in the know. And they would have to be almost fanatical in their beliefs and cold heartedness. And yet there they are with their manifesto, the Neo-Cons and PNAC.
Your point about bringing down WT1, 2 and 7 requiring 80 men and twelve miles of cabling I think you will find is simply wrong. It would require time and access. And who ran the security company for WT1, 2 and 7 for the crucial time? George W. Bush’s cousin. (The Architects for 9/11 truth are also not fools – and they at least hold it was possible to prepare the buildings)
Dr. Judy Miller’s work suggests the ‘dustification’ of WT1 and 2 required explosives that are still militarily secret (it is well worth watching one of her You-tube presentations simply for the questions she poses).
Given WT1 and 2 were full of asbestos and coming to the end of their lives (the buildings were apparently in serious disrepair) that they might have been wired secretly over a year or two is not such an impossible conjecture. And if you were part of that work, and realised you had been, and that someone gave the order to blow the building up, would you go to your local news agency and expect to be believed? Or to live if you spoke out?
The audacity of this act was that most people cannot conceive of men or women evil enough to carry it out or competent enough to do so and keep the story from breaking out. It was a psy-ops act of extraordinary audacity.
My personal belief is that the truth will (perhaps unlike the Kennedy assassination) come out in the next few years – as America crumbles financially. We shall see.
” America managed to keep the development of the atom bomb completely secret – and that involved 100’s of thousands of people. ”
Well yes that’s always a favourite; sadly like just about everything else Truthers claim it isn’t true. Obviously the British knew about it, all the scientists that were working on the British Bomb, Tube Alloys, were seconded to Los Alamos in 1942 and the Japanese, Germans and Russians all knew about it too. The Nazis made several unsuccessful attempts to get spies inside the project. The Russians were more successful and planted at least five, well they were the ones that got caught. The speed with which the Soviet Union developed its own Bomb post war suggests that there were more.
Whilst I have the greatest respect for Craig Murray and his reaction to the Uzbekistan authorities boiling prisoners alive, I do not believe he is right on 9/11.
He states above that they couldn’t even keep Watergate quiet. Has it not occurred to him, that ‘they’ may well not have wanted to ‘keep it quiet’ but needed a pretext to ditch Nixon?
Who is likely to have a better idea of who was behind 9/11, an ex-British Ambassador to Uzbekistan, or an ex-German Defence Minister – ‘9/11 was an inside job says former German Defense Minister Andreas von Bülow’: http://freedom-articles.toolsforfreedom.com/911-was-an-inside-job-says-minister/
‘Dr.’ Judy Woods (you wrote ‘Miller’, but obviously mean ‘Woods’) is generally treated as a bad joke by the majority of 9/11 Truthers.
‘…My personal belief is that the truth will (perhaps unlike the Kennedy assassination) come out in the next few years – as America crumbles financially…’? There are masses of info out about JFK!
A very important aspect to bear in mind is ‘has this sort of thing happened before?’. Well, most people are still unaware that Pearl Harbour was a contrived, treasonous action; Japan was intentionally goaded to attack Pearl Harbour, the US tracked the Japanese Task Force across the Pacific, and DID NOT WARN PEARL.
The object of the exercise was, FDR, the Military/Industrial Complex and others wanted America to enter WWII, but only 16% of Americans wanted to get involved in ‘another European war’. The day after Pearl Harbour, and 2,400 US dead, 1 million men signed up under arms. The ‘cunning plan’ had worked!
And how many people are aware that the ‘Gulf of Tonkin’ ‘attack’ never occurred? Yet it was used to massively escalate the Vietnam War (before that it was so-called US ‘Military Advisors’, albeit thousands of them, involved; The fake Tonkin attack led to massive introduction of US Regular Forces, and conscripts.
They are just two of the big ‘False Flag’ ‘adaptations’, manipulations behind the scenes, or just blatant lies; allied methods of fomenting wars, where the real motives and motivators are hidden, pulling the strings of unwitting puppets.
@ Paul Barbara
The 3 towers were brought down by controlled demolition, but the destruction of 1 & 2 was different from 7, but why? 1 & 2 were dramatic involving huge explosive clouds of dust, but 7 was modest and hidden in comparison. Was this a deliberate difference in the same plot or is it evidence of two plots? That is, was the primary plot to destroy 1 & 2, but those with insider knowledge doing some business of their own, on the back of the primary plot, similar to speculating on the share price of the airlines involved?
My guess is that the construction of building 7 was different to buildings 1 and 2, and therefore required a different demolition method.
It also seems plausible that Flight 93 (which “crashed” so unconvincingly in Pennsylvania) was intended to hit building 7 and provide a justification for its collapse.
The “crash site” of Flight 93 seems to have been hastily improvised. Building 7’s collapse inexplicably received no publicity. Maybe there’s a connection.
@ Node
1 & 2 were destroyed from the top down, 7 from the bottom up, hence the difference and of course the audit office at the Pentagon got destroyed too. But my query about different plots or different interests, is because 1 & 2 were high profile attacks used to promote war abroad, whereas 7 and Pentagon seem intended to perpetuate financial fraud at home under the smokescreen of 1 & 2.
I agree with the above.
Also remarkable is the level of intelligence penetration needed to circumvent the air defences. The cover up is not one of complicity but rather of incompetence
Groan……incompetence where virtually all ‘incompetents’ got promotions? Where ‘Cui bono’ fits so perfectly, ‘legitimating’ the power/oil grab in the Middle East? And having openly threatened the Taliban that if they didn’t co-operate with trans-Afghanistan oil and gas pipelines, the US would bury them under a carpet of bombs?
@ Dave May 16, 2016 at 05:46
The reason the Towers seemed to come down as they did was because it was necessary to make it look like aircraft impacts and resultant fires caused the collapses; in Bldg. 7 it was supposed to look like an ‘ordinary’ collapse from fires (though there was obviously nothing ‘ordinary’ about it, since no steel-framed high-rise building has EVER, before or since 9/11, EVER come down because of fires.
No steel framed building, or any other type of building come to that, has ever been demolished using thermite before or since but that doesn’t seem to bother you as much.
Many steel-framed high-rise buildings have had fires, sometimes massive ones, and survived.
How many unsuccessful attempts to bring them down with thermite have there been?
None. No one has ever tried. Except of course on 9/11 (according to some).
On this point as to whether if it was an inside job it would have leaked what do we make of former Italian President the late Francesco Cossiga’s statement? Are there any Italian commentaries analysing what he said, why he said and in what context.
He also appeared in the BBC Gladio documentary. At that time the USSR had fallen, special ops were being reviewed and it would have been understandable for Italians to either assume deep state control was unnecessary and over or unnecessary, but continuing and to agitate for a change.