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 91 92 93 94 95 134
      • Clark

        It’s pointless trying to pin all the blame onto either side; that’s what propagandists do.

        People fight. What matters is to work out why

        …and then fix it.

        • Clark

          I know, you’re looking for the truth. But you’re looking in the wrong direction. You’re drilling down into the details, but that’s where the propagandists want you to look, because the important matters are in the context. You need to zoom out, but you’ve been tricked into zooming in.

          • Chris Jones

            I would highly recommend you listen to your own advice Clark. You keep contradicting yourself and confusing the issue. If you want to be useful, start using a broad statement that is inclusive of all and has common ground, such as the one I wrote earlier, in order to bring the perpetrators to justice.

          • Clark

            I hear you. You said:

            * I contradict myself,
            * I confuse the issue,
            * I’m not useful.

            It seems I’m quite an outsider here.

            The problem I have with “9/11 was an inside job” is that it doesn’t specify inside what.

            The most inclusive statement I’ve managed to come up with is this:

            “the official US investigations into 9/11, some based extensively on false confessions extracted under torture, confused and concealed more than they revealed, and jingoistic media and various pro-war Western political elements together popularised wars against several countries whose governments they long had wished to overthrow, and to slash civil liberties and promote mass-surveillance of the entire global population including those of their own countries”

            The pro-war side would have trouble discrediting any of it, but it isn’t much good as a sound-bite. Sorry, 9/11 was complex and doesn’t fit easily into the “good guys versus bad guys” formula relentlessly projected by most of the mass-media. Maybe you can work with others to trim it down.

            Another big problem I have is that the 9/11 Truth side seems to avoid analysis of Saudi Arabia’s relationship with certain overt and covert US/Western foreign policies. Any sound-bite would need to cover that, too, which even my attempt above doesn’t manage. Can you help with that as well please?

          • Chris Jones

            No reply button on your previous response regarding your statement of:

            “the official US investigations into 9/11, some based extensively on false confessions extracted under torture, confused and concealed more than they revealed, and jingoistic media and various pro-war Western political elements together popularised wars against several countries whose governments they long had wished to overthrow, and to slash civil liberties and promote mass-surveillance of the entire global population including those of their own countries”

            Pretty inclusive but a bit of a mouthfull perhaps. Glad we can agree on common ground anyhow. What about this as a further adaption:

            “the official US investigations into 9/11, some based extensively on false confessions extracted under torture, confused and concealed more than they revealed. Jingoistic media and various pro-war Western political elements and their allies including Saudia Arabia and Israel together popularised wars against several countries whose governments they long had wished to overthrow, and to slash civil liberties and promote mass-surveillance of the entire global population including those of their own countries”

            If other countries must be named, naming Saudia Arabia without naming Israel just wouldn’t be cricket..

          • Clark

            Glad you like it; it took me quite a few revisions to hammer it out.

            I sort of include Israel and Saudi Arabia in the Western neocon axis – along with the UK and France, and through the UK considerable influence in the countries of the British Commonwealth – you must have seen the video of the Australian and Canadian Prime Ministers Stephen Harper and John Howard giving word-for-word speeches before the 2003 devastation of Iraq – and then there are also the other Gulf countries on “our side” such as Qatar, Bahrain and Kuwait. So I just wrote “Western” since the passage was already too long.

            Part of our problem is that we don’t have good names for the entities we’re dealing with. I use “neocon” quite a lot, but it doesn’t really apply over the entire time span of the US-etc/Saudi-extremist collaboration, and it doesn’t apply so well when the Bush’s aren’t in power. “Wahhabism” and “Salafism” both also sweep in a lot of innocent people, most of them brutally oppressed. The opposing side I sometimes call “the Russian sphere of influence” but this is far from ideal, too.

            One of the old sayings of “magic” is that when you name a thing you gain some power over it. So of course the corporate media never names this somewhat flexible set of alliances.

            Regarding 9/11, the only two countries that really deserve to be named directly seem to be the US and Saudi Arabia. Israel certainly helps to promote neocon wars in the Middle East and its objectives are overly supported in our corporate media. It was also one of several countries that forewarned of 9/11, but I’ve yet to see direct evidence of actual Israeli contribution to the 9/11 attacks.

            Sorry, I know that’s not much help. Coining snappy names is a PR thing; never a strong point of mine.

  • Clark

    So, to summarise the summary, what everyone but Glenn is trying to tell me – or rather trying to make me say – is:

    – “The US committed 9/11 all by themselves”

    That’s what makes you each “one of us”, and why I must be “one of them“.

    Right?

    • Clark

      I’ll download Bollyn’s video when I’m up after midnight. I haven’t had a chance to watch Lindauer yet. Only another three and a half hours of video to analyse, shouldn’t take me more than a working day or so when I get around to it.

      No point asking for transcripts and summaries, I suppose?

      In the mid to late ’90s, Windows 95 was the most widely distributed product ever released, with tens of millions of installations worldwide. It contained a bug which took every user a number of minutes, up to an hour, to correct. In terms of total man-hours, this was the biggest waste of time ever produced.

    • Clark

      Paul Barbara, I’ve watched Bollyn’s video. Basically he lists a lot of bad stuff done by Israel, and says, essentially, that therefore Israel must have committed 9/11. However, he presents no actual evidence for the accusation. He also states that a terrorist and double-agent Ali Mohamed worked for Mossad, but I could find no evidence for that. He makes fairly typical assertions about explosive demolition of the WTC buildings, talks about “drone planes” and asserts that each aircraft fired a missile at the its target Tower before hitting it, based on a very low resolution video capture.

      So do you think Israel did 9/11?

  • Paul Barbara

    Showing Clinton’s true face, here’s some useful background to how Obama and the Snopes Hildabeast totally disregarded Libyan arms embargo contrary to international and US law:
    ‘Another Fast and Furious: Confidential Email Proves Hillary Clinton Supplied Al-Qaida with Weapons through Benghazi Embassy!:
    http://www.thedailysheeple.com/another-fast-and-furious-confidential-e mail-proves-hillary-clinton-supplied-al-qaida-with-weapons-through-ben ghazi-embassy_082016
    ‘..A confidential intelligence email obtained by True Pundit provides proof that President Obama and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton created a secret and illegal alliance between the United States and a faction of the Al-Qaeda terrorist organization to ultimately assassinate Libyan strongman Muammar Gaddafi and distribute weapons to Middle Eastern terror groups, intelligence sources confirm.

    The March 2011 email, sent to Clinton’s private email server from intelligence consultant and long-time confidant Sidney Blumenthal, provides devastating overt and covert revelations of how the United States, under Clinton’s Dept. of State, secretly violated a number of domestic and international laws by colluding with foreign governments and the terrorist organization and its leaders to conduct rogue foreign policy. The information in the email, coupled with corroboration and background from intelligence sources, highlight egregious political and legally questionable abuses including:

    *Clinton directly aligned and allied with Al-Qaeda and its fanatics to overthrow, assassinate Gaddafi.

    *Clinton directly armed and commissioned known terrorists and sworn foes with weapons in Libya, a direct violation of UN Security Council resolution 1973, which called for a complete arms embargo on Libya.

    *Clinton and Obama together financed Al-Qaeda to overthrow Libyan government and stockpile weapons, including tanks and heavy artillery, which were ultimately shipped from Libya to terror factions in Syria and elsewhere.

    *According to intelligence sources, many of the weapons supplied to Al-Qaeda factions were believed to have be used against Americans in the Sept. 11 2012 Benghazi attacks that killed U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens, Information Officer Sean Smith, and two CIA operatives, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, both former Navy SEALs. Stevens is the first U.S. ambassador killed in an attack since Adolph Dubs was killed in 1979……..’

    Though not 9/11, it shows the same deception and lack of humanity of the US ruling ‘Elite’.

    • Clark

      This look useful (though I haven’t followed the link yet).

      lysias, are there legal challenges against Hillary Clinton? Judicial Watch? If prosecution proceedings could be initiated the Democrats would have to fall back on Bernie Sanders.

      Paul, is that a criticism of snopes.com?

      • Clark

        I followed the Mailchimp link and also downloaded the .pdf, hoping for some mechanics I could engage with. But the .pdf is just the first three pages out of thirteen; there’s no physical mechanics in it. If someone will find me the full version I’ll comment on the mechanics in it.

        • Paul Barbara

          Enventualment, mon ami. At present, one can get a free copy by donating $30 to the campaign.

          • Clark

            I’m not paying for the damn thing; waste of time and money, I’m close to certain. It’ll get posted on the ‘net in due course anyway.

          • Clark

            Reply to Paul Barbara, August 6, at 01:29:

            https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-93/#comment-617285

            Why are you so obsessed with demolitions? That’s a direct question; please answer it. Surely the important thing now is to stop the US collaboration with Saudi-radicalised extremists. If someone did demolish the buildings, it probably wasn’t related to the US/Saudi collaboration. The devastation of Libya, and the current trashing of Syria were both facilitated by this projection of Saudi power.

            To answer your comment below, we rightly have suspicion of reports in the corporate media from unnamed sources and the same applies in this case. We’ve no idea what the vans were doing, assuming whoever told Lindauer was even being honest. We’ve deduced that there were people acting secretly outside the remit of the US authorities – that’s inescapable from Lindauer’s testimony – so maybe Lindauer’s anonymous contact was working for them, and has since been feeding Lindauer false information or red herrings, either in an attempt to discredit her or simply to lead her astray.

            As for heat, the building collapses will have produced a lot of it; the building collapses themselves will have released energy equivalent to a small nuclear detonation. In addition there were vehicle fuel tanks, mains electricity supply, possibly gas mains, probably stockpiles of stored ammunition, lithium laptop batteries, large quantities of lead-acid batteries for uninterruptable power supplies for racks of computers, probably bottles of compressed gasses, even energy from however many telephone lines that terminated in the buildings (have you ever seen the copper bus bars in a telephone exchange? Serious power there). There must have been all sorts of energetic materials in the WTC buildings; these are just the ones I’ve been able to think of.

            But no matter. If I have come under (rather unpleasant) pressure to accept demolition theories, which I demonstrably have, I can be sure that as important a witness as Susan Lindauer will have been pressured much more. She’s a communicator, so she probably doesn’t have the skills in physics and mechanics to look into it like I do.

            Paul, have you considered that the entire demolition hypothesis could be a psi-op to discredit the 9/11 Truth movement? It certainly seems to be impossible to get away from the subject.

          • Clark

            And Paul, we don’t even know there was melted steel. Fire-fighters reported molten metal, but I expect there was a lot of molten lead about, and probably other metals too such as aluminium from office furniture and fittings etc. There was red hot steel pulled out of the wreckage, but it wasn’t molten. I haven’t encountered claims of melted molybdenum before.

  • Clark

    I’m fifteen minutes into Lindauer’s address. She seems very credible. I’m glad she’s held up so well; I was worried because I’d read that she’d been forcibly drugged while held at a military base, though I’ve no idea how reliable that claim was.

    She keeps saying that the CIA were doing their jobs properly, they were doing counter-terrorism. They were forewarned the hijacked aircraft would be crashed into the WTC. The CIA were trying to gain intelligence that would be more ‘actionable’, such as which airports targeted flights might depart from.

    Others should watch this apart from me, especially those who say that the entirety of many US authorities arranged 9/11. That’s not what this woman has to say. She has implicatde Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld regarding the devastation of Iraq.

    • Clark

      The CIA were being vigilant against Iraq to prevent a strike in retaliation for the genocidal sanctions. August 2 2001, the Senate held nomination hearings for Robert Meuler to be Director of the FBI. Lindauer spoke against Meuler to her handler Richard Fuse. She offered to go back to New York to speak to the Iraqis (presumably at the UN) but Fuse told her to stay away, saying they were expecting an attack upon New York with a “small thermonuclear device”.

      Be careful quoting this section, as someone probably misheard or misquoted. ‘Thermonuclear’ means an H-bomb, a fusion bomb, NOT a fission bomb like the ones dropped on Japan in 1945. So far as I know, ‘small’ H-bombs can’t be built. Only a few nation states have managed to make H-bombs. A-bombs are relatively easy to make, thermonukes are not.

      • Clark

        Susan Lindauer says, from about 29 min 35 seconds in:

        “a lot of people in the 9/11 Truth community have gotten kinda… at first when I first broke this news, they were like and a lot of people attacked me and they said ‘you’re saying there were airplane hijackings; no, no, there was a demolition’ and I’m like saying ‘no, no, there’s both'”

        “a lot of people attacked me” – Well I can certainly relate to that.

        All Lindauer’s first-hand evidence is about foreknowledge, and that Iraq would be smashed if there was an attack on the US, even though it was known that no such terrorists were operating from Iraq. She said that the main reason that she was imprisoned under the Patriot Act was that her message to John Ashcroft negated plausible deniability for him. I think that all of this checks out.

        She offers NO first-hand testimony for demolition, and even the third party testimony (from “a friend”, not otherwise named) only refers to some mystery vans.

        I’ll tell you, I think this woman has been harangued by Truthers until she started supporting demolition theories, just as has been attempted with me on this thread. Such Truthers should be ashamed of themselves because Susan Lindauer has already been through hell at the hands of US authorities.

        • Clark

          I’m at 34 minutes – questions from the floor.

          My conclusion so far with respect to this testimony. The US counter-terrorism authorities knew an attack was coming and informed the administration. A secret cabal within intelligence knew it was coming from their own Saudi-radicalised extremists, but they deliberately misdirected those outside the cabal to suspect attackers to be operating out of Iraq, despite all the evidence to the contrary. The same cabal obstructed specific investigations from above and interfered with domestic defence to ensure the attacks succeeded.

          The secret cabal included the highest levels of the Administration – (Bush)*, Cheney, Rumsfeld. Together, these are who we’ve been referring to as “the neocons”.

          * Bush is too stupid to count; didn’t his IQ come in at 87 or something? Mushroom; he’ll have been kept in the dark and fed on shit. If anyone gets fried for this it’ll be him, while the others get off; you watch.

          • Clark

            An excellent address by Susan Lindauer including fascinating and informative first-hand testimony. Paul Barbara, thank you very much for linking to it. She’s highly credible. She refers to her CIA training in objective recall of detail – it’s the sort of thing that impresses me, and she’s clearly good at it; there’s a clear difference in her presentation between testimony of things she’s actually witnessed including things told to her by third parties, and her impressions and speculations.

            In accordance with that training, she presents first-hand testimony for hijackings on 9/11, and makes it very clear that she does not present evidence for demolition of the WTC buildings. She relates only her friend’s testimony of vans in the small hours at the WTC – which could of course mean nothing. Lindauer makes clear that explosive demolition is simply a belief she holds, not based upon anything she witnessed while working for the CIA. I’m impressed that she treats the audience just as professionally as she did her CIA handler.

            I’m very glad to have seen her on video. I’d read that she’d been declared incompetent – an outright smear; she’s obviously highly competent. I know that she has information about the Lockerbie bombing but I now know that it can be taken seriously. I’m very glad that she managed to escape forced administration of psychiatric drugs. I think I’ll read her book Extreme Prejudice. Her account of her legal battles, the attempted suppression of her book and her inclusion of legal documents in its appendices remind me of Craig and Murder in Samarkand.

            Lindauer uses the word “jihadists”. I avoid that term because Jihad is an important concept in Islam just as “fighting the good fight” is in Christianity. It’s true that it can refer to physical combat and war, but it also means mastery over oneself, the struggle of conscience over selfishness for instance, and fighting for rights including the right to practice Islam. I don’t blame Lindauer for using the term because it’s what she’s used to and she probably doesn’t know about these other meanings. I use terms like “radicalised extremists” because “jihadists” effectively demonizes and insults all Muslims.

            Lindauer makes multiple mentions of such extremists and US/Western cooperation with them to further covert foreign policy objectives, including in Libya (where Israel has been also paying them). We should hammer very hard on this point. As I’ve been saying over and over, on 9/11, targets in the US were hit by the neocons’ own proxy forces. In time it may be proven in law that senior neocons actually arranged this, or it may be that so much evidence has been destroyed and corrupted that it’s impossible to secure convictions. But even according to the official reports, the US was attacked by its own most favoured extremist proxies. We have ample evidence to press this point home right now, and throw a fucking great spanner into the works of the neocon covert regime-change country-destroying system. Compared with that, “controlled demolition” and the like offers very weak evidence indeed; we have no testimony like Lindauers on that matter, and though people won’t have it, your local physics geek (me) is telling you that the arguments are very shaky. All we achieve with demolition theories is to discredit ourselves.

            Some my not like what follows and I don’t like it myself, but convicting Blair, Cheney and the like should be second priority. Second, not forgotten about. But stopping the slaughter must come first. US/Western collusion with extremists is the pressure-point for that because it is undeniable.

      • Paul Barbara

        You’re commenting again, only 35 minutes into a 2-hour video.
        The post I put in about your perevious (15 minute) update unfortunately came up as a post, rather than a reply. Probably my mistake.

        • Clark

          Yes, I’ve posted in the wrong places a few times, too. Something I just noticed now is that I clicked a “reply” button, and then changed my mind, so I copied, clicked a link to a comment page to get a top-level comment box, pasted there and posted, but it appeared at the “Reply” point I’d first clicked anyway.

          • Clark

            I posted notes as I went along so I wouldn’t have to remember it all at the end. There’s nothing wrong with that, in fact it’s sensible, and in any case you have no right to tell me how I should analyse a video.

            …Just because I don’t accept pre-rigged demolition charges. One day you might come to appreciate me. But I won’t be holding my breath.

    • Paul Barbara

      It’s never a good idea to come to ANY conclusions after going into a two-hour video for fifteen minutes.

      • Clark

        I stand by what I wrote. Some of the Truthers have pressured Susan Lindauer to accept “controlled demolition”. You don’t have to face it, Paul; I do. I get it time after time, and I have done for years. I don’t like the way I’m treated on this thread because of it.

        It’s orders of magnitude worse for anyone in Lindauer’s position. Declared “incompetent to stand trial”, dismissed as mentally ill, denied being published by the corporate media, fearful that the authorities may gag or incarcerate her again, she’s between the devil and the deep blue sea. She’s virtually outcast in mainstream circles so the only place she has a voice is in the Truth movement, but Truthers pressure you, claim you’re a false identity, and tell you you’re a liar, conspirator and “controlled opposition” unless you espouse controlled demolition. I feel for her.

  • Paul Barbara

    I don’t want to overload anyone’s circuits, but here is a partial transcript of Susan Lindauer being interviewed by Kevin Barrett (it’s not the transcript of Susan Lindauer’s video I have previously put up here):
    CIA Asset Susan Lindauer blows the whistle on 9/11, Iraq:
    http://truthjihad.blogspot.co.uk/2011/01/cia-asset-susan-lindauer-blows-whistle.html

    It’s pretty good, though once Susan stops referring to things she KNOWS, through being the channel the ‘Diplomacy’ was being carried out between top US government and the Iraqi diplomats, I disagree with her.
    BUT, she always makes it crystal clear that she is also fully aware of what she KNOWS and what she speculates.
    She is a very brave woman.

  • Clark

    To return to the overall picture, the US/Western hawks currently known as the neocons routinely use Saudi-inspired violent extremists to project their foreign policy objectives. Susan Lindauer’s testimony confirms this. And I’ve discovered something important about that but of course no one here is interested because it was me who posted about it and I’m not allowed in your lot’s club.

    Hardly anyone has even heard of it, it’s been brushed under the carpet at Wikipedia, there’s only one book with any first-hand record of it, and that book is out of print and nearly unavailable. One of the most influential treaties of our time that eventually resulted in 9/11, and yet there isn’t a single copy of that book in the entire Essex Libraries network.

    It’s a secret agreement made between President Roosevelt and King Ibn Saud on Feb 14 1945 at the Great Bitter Lake in the Suez Canal. It’s called the Quincy Agreement.

    And it has to go.

    • Paul Barbara

      No one ‘pressures’ Susan Lindauer to say anything; do you suppose, having heard her testimony, she would?
      Your casual dismissal of the unknown vans coming into the buildings after the janitors had all left, in unmarked cars, every night for a considerable period for about ten days/two weeks shortly before 9/11, and no one the guy knew (and I don’t know what his position was, but he was high-up, and Susan respected his wish for anonymity) had a clue who they were or what they were doing (I have heard of these vans before) is not well grounded. He was obviously concerned about these vans; if it was of ‘no consequence’, why would he not have asked the WTC security who they were? For the same reason he wanted to remain anonymous – his pension, and quite possibly his life, could well have been on the line.
      Susan knew all the reports coming in, and how they were suppressed – but that does NOT mean they were true; it could have been, and I’m sure were (there – you have me!) just part of the ‘red herring’ trail the PTB were spreading.
      Like you, I intend to read her book.
      But seeing as how you are still adamant that there was no controlled demolition, try:
      Christopher Bollyn Speaks at Portland Community College:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmw1POF6hpk
      Perhaps you have a ‘theory’ of what caused the absolutely tremendous heat required to melt steel and molybdenum?
      Was it friction, ‘cos it ain’t fiction!

      • Clark

        Paul, I wish you hadn’t replied about the buildings on this comment. I’m sure that the Quincy Agreement is absolutely vital to stopping the ongoing slaughter. Syrians are dying and fleeing for their lives right now; there will be no end to it until the Quincy Agreement is annulled. Have you even looked at the two Wikipedia pages yet?

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Quincy_%28CA-71%29#The_Quincy_Agreement

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Bitter_Lake

        And the vital book is was U.S. Marine Corps Colonel Bill Eddy’ FDR Meets Ibn Saud.

        • Paul Barbara

          The way to stop the slaughter is for people to know the truth – particularly about 9/11, Vietnam, WWI & WWII, and so on.
          The US and others planned the slaughter in Syria, as in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Nicaragua, Chile, Guatemala and so on ad infinitum.
          Exposing these evil Luciferian warmongers is vital – why are you so unhelpful and obstructive in this?
          I had a look at the first ‘Quincy’ link, and can’t see what you are getting at.
          Hope you manage to watch Christopher Bollyn’s video – it is VERY enlightening!

          • Clark

            What I’m getting at is that the agreement has been tucked away in a corner on Wikipedia*, and the book is almost unavailable – look it up on Amazon and then tell me it’s not important; you’re in for a shock. The Quincy agreement defines the relationship between the US and the extremely violent Saudi version of Islam. This is even bigger than US involvement in South America; there are about 1.6 billion Muslims, and Saudi Arabia want to buy their allegiance with the oil money. That agreement is the key because the US is bound by treaty to let them, maybe even assist them – I don’t know because I haven’t read it yet.

            * Maybe you don’t understand about Wikipedia but it’s not run by any government or corporation. It was started by a libertarian who’s opposed to all government restrictions on liberty. Now obviously the organisation can be threatened with Official Secrets Acts etc. but a treaty like the Quincy agreement isn’t covered by that. So the spooks have to take a different approach. They have to follow Wikipedia rules; if they remove well-sourced information other editors will just replace it, so instead they spin information as best they can, disguise it and sweep it into forgotten corners. Check out the torture used to force false confessions for the 9/11 Commission Report if you don’t believe me. The information is there, but it isn’t easy to find. I know how they work; I’ve been editing Wikipedia for a few years now. Reference to that agreement and that book have been hidden, and there must be a reason for that.

            OK, expose the warmongering instead of harping on about something you don’t have the physics to evaluate but which I do. You’ve got nothing but weak circumstantial evidence for demolition and I’m getting surer and surer that we’ve been thrown a false lead. At the end of the day, NIST and FEMA are not the warmongers.

          • Clark

            Paul, I’m only being unhelpful and obstructive if you’re right and demolition was rigged; otherwise I’m being majorly helpful by saving you from a false lead. But you admit that you don’t have the physics to check. Well, I’m good at physics, and I’m getting nothing, zilch, nada. There is NO demolition smoking gun. Every lead I follow is a blind, and you can’t say I haven’t looked. NIST seem to have covered up all right – but most probably what they’re hiding is that the buildings weren’t as strong as everyone had been led to believe, so they failed sooner than would be expected. You can imagine the compensation to the families if they admitted that; most of the occupants might have got out. It would completely wipe out Silverstein’s double insurance claim if he was knowingly using sub-standard buildings. Promoting demolition theories might be doing him an enormous favour.

            I’ve got the Bollyn video. I’ll watch it when I get the chance, but if there was good evidence for demolition it would be out by now. You can’t hide stuff in classical mechanics; it’s just too simple and visible.

  • Paul Barbara

    @ Clark August 6, 2016 at 03:57
    ‘…..but if there was good evidence for demolition it would be out by now. You can’t hide stuff in classical mechanics; it’s just too simple and visible.’
    The evidence IS out, but you seem too busy or unwilling to check out A&E website and videos. THEY have 2,500+ Architects & Engineers; yet you (with no qualifications) insist on contradicting them.So, why not prepare and get published a paper for Peer Review in a recognized scientific journal? I accept you know more than I about physics, but I do not accept you know more than the 2,500+ A&E people. Does that not make a whole lot of sense?
    I’m sure you will accept the tremendous MSM bias in favour of the ‘Official Conspiracy Theory’, which is why the evidence A&E have is not widely known; but it is ‘out there’.
    I’m pretty sure that if you take any of the A&E people to task about their work, question them about their specific input or statements, they will reply.

    • Clark

      Paul, there are hundreds of thousands of architects and engineers. Let’s take an unrelated example so that the figures haven’t been massaged. The IEEE, the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers has over 400,000 members worldwide. These are ALL engineers, and as such eligible to join A&E Truth. 2500 membership is insignificant.

  • Kempe

    The double standards of Truthers never ceases to amuse me. They’ll refuse to accept that a plane hit the Pentagaon despite dozens of eye-witnesses having seen it and the presence of heavy wreckage, flight recorders, body parts etc but an unnamed source who claims he saw mysterious vans at the WTC quoted by a known liar and fantasist with proven mental health issues and who thinks she has psychic powers; no problem at all. Well the shortage of CCTV footage is often quoted as evidence that there was no plane at the Pentagon so unless someone can produce any CCTV of these vans there’s no evidence they ever existed either.

    Remind me again how long this petition on AE911 has been running, it’s been several years, but to date they’ve only managed to attract less than half of one percent of the certificated architects and engineers in the US and the petition is open to the world. Not doing very well are they?

    • Clark

      Kempe, please substantiate your claims about Susan Lindauer. Strongly. Have you watched the video? She is VERY good at discriminating between her experience and her impressions, better than the vast majority of people I meet in everyday life.

      • Clark

        Kempe, I’ll tell you that I examined the Wikipedia article on her some years back. Information was scant, and it appeared to be Lindauer herself arguing on the Talk page. There was an article on the man she claims to have been her handler, too. I’ve had some experience with the information suppression techniques deployed against Wikipedia, and it did look to me as though Lindauers story was being suppressed.

        • Clark

          Kempe, I’ve just looked at here Wikipedia article – it is much improved, and the former travesty will be recorded in its History, Talk, and Talk History pages.

          NOTHING about being “a fantasist”, NOTHING about “mental health issues” except the allegations of the US state prosecution. The US side were severely torturing people so I wouldn’t be the least surprised if they tried to silence a US citizen by forcibly administering drugs.

      • Kempe

        Start with this:-

        http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/17/nyregion/17lindauer.html?_r=0

        Even if she’s legitimate she’s quoting a conveniently unnamed source and ask yourself why it’s taken 15 years for this information to surface. The question of when the WTC was rigged for demolition has always been a problem for the conspiracy community, now after all this time someone remembers seeing some mysterious vans. Very convenient.

        • Clark

          Susan Lindauer makes it very clear that she’s quoting an unnamed source. She does NOT present this as first hand evidence.

          Kempe, this woman has been pressured by Truthers to do lip-service to demolition theories, just as I have. But her claims of CIA foreknowledge and Iraqi cooperation with inspectors and US intelligence are all consistent with leaks and revelations about the fabricated case for the 2003 war, including Craig’s own. For goodness sake watch her video and then tell me she’s crazy. She isn’t. ALL her first-hand claims are backed up on Wikipedia from reliable sources.

          • Clark

            Kempe, you’ll be referring to this, then:

            “The judge cited the testimony of a government psychiatrist who said that Ms. Lindauer claimed to have special powers and that she had indicated she once met with Osama bin Laden, who disclosed to her the location of a bomb. The judge said that demonstrated “a lack of connection with reality.”

            Judge Preska also cited Ms. Lindauer’s behavior in court last year, when, after being admonished not to speak without first consulting with her lawyer, she stuffed tissues in her mouth. That was “not the response of someone rationally connected to the proceedings,” Judge Preska said”.

            Oh, might that be one of the “government psychiatrists” that was involved in the US torture programme? It may well be, especially considering that 9/11 over which the torture programme was started is the context, but the corporate media New York Times neglects to tell us, so it’s just another unnamed source.

            Stuffing tissues into her own mouth sound like a symbolic protest, and having heard her tell her story and seen how her Wiki article was being distorted, that seems reasonable enough to me.

          • Clark

            It gets worse:

            “and that she had indicated she once met with Osama bin Laden”.

            So the damn spook psychiatrist wouldn’t even directly accuse her of having SAID such a thing, she merely “indicated” it. We’re told.

        • Clark

          Kempe, having myself been accused by Truthers of being a gatekeeper or whatever, as has been insinuated against yourself, I feel that I understand your frustration with proponents of theories for which there is no real evidence. But you really should watch Lindauer giving her address and check the reliable sources which substantiate her claims; her first-hand claims all check out, within the bounds of secrecy to be expected from the CIA. This woman certainly seems to have been abused by the US state, and until you check it out, claims such as yours above constitute an ignorant and unwarranted attack upon a victim.

        • Chris Jones

          I’d say that most people looking in to the 9/11 crime and open conspiracy are following the evidence that suggests that the two main towers were mostly brought down with highly advanced high energy weapons / nuclear devices as seen by Dr Judy Wood’s research showing that most of the buiilding turned in to dust in mid air https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufWggCESyDg It would be logical to assume that some highly advanced untracable explosive devices were also used on a smaller scale and especially in buiding 7 which came down in a perfect demolition free fall. ‘Mixing it up’ by and providing as many confusing trails is also a tried and tested method used to keep people guessing and arguing. But the common ground is that this was an inside job using this event as a false flag in order to justify further wars and surveliiance on all of us

          • Clark

            Chris Jones’ no, nukes and energy weapons are two of the least popular theories for the destruction of the Twin Towers. Here are some videos of building demolitions without explosives. Even these much smaller building demolitions produce considerable quantities of dust:

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwFHEoiUZ7o
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COG7VD_DE6w
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EY3nj728WPY

            If you look at pictures of the wreckage you can see lots of rubble and sections of buildings that wasn’t turned to dust; it was about six storeys deep.

            No, according to David Chandler who promotes demolition theories, Building 7’s descent was indistinguishable from free-fall for only about 2.25 seconds of the 4.7 seconds of its descent which he analysed. In distance, I think that’s about seven or eight storeys of its 47 storey height. He measured the descent rate by using a software package to analyse a video of the collapse. But if timed from the first part of the building observed to move, to the whole lot being a pile of rubble, the collapse took about twenty seconds. Building 7 didn’t collapse entirely “into its own footprint”; it damaged two adjacent buildings, one so severely that it had to be demolished, I think.

            Judging by the way you used the term, you need to look up the meaning of “false flag attack”.

            Chris, you should do more fact-checking because these sort of inaccuracies just discredit those who promote them.

          • Chris Jones

            I’m not particularly drawn to the dialectic about whether it was explosives or other non explosives methods used to bring about the towers and building 7 Clarke. As your very informative video links show, the important thing is to remember is that they were brought down and demolished one way or another, that many people were murdered and that this is a crime that needs to be answerable to justice. My opinion is that it was high energy /nuclear technology that brought down these towers and that other more ‘traditional’ demolition techniques were also probably used to weaken the building/s and/or used as a diversional/red herring trail. Either way, the important thing is that they were deliberately brought down and demolished.

            Not sure if you yourself understand the context of false flags – false flag describes ‘covert operations that are designed to deceive in such a way that the operations appear as though they are being carried out by entities, groups, or nations other than those who actually planned and executed them’ This is usually then used as a pretext to attack a pre determined enemy whether domestic or foreign. I think we can tick that one off in the case of 9/11. If you want to know a bit more about a similar well developed method, I would also recommend taking a look and taking the time to understand the Hegelian dialectic of problem, reaction, solution.

            If I may, I’d also like ro recommend a great bit of your own advice which you kindly gave to Paul barbara recently: “You’re drilling down into the details, but that’s where the propagandists want you to look, because the important matters are in the context. You need to zoom out, but you’ve been tricked into zooming in”

          • lysias

            I increasingly suspect that the intel agencies add in diversional/red herring trails into their plans for false flags.

    • Clark

      That shows some smoke billowing near the top of Building 7. You can’t even see the base of the building, which is where explosions would have to be if they were the cause of such a collapse.

      • uestions.

        Take another look – it shows (and how on earth you could miss it, given the red markings around what was to be shown) begs several questions – one of which is if you need glasses, did you have them on, and another is have you never heard of ‘squibs’?
        If you were to say ‘It might be photo-shopped’ fair enough. But are you really that unobservant you missed what was clearly indicated?
        Once again, you are wearing down my patience.

        • Paul Barbara

          The above post was by me – I don’t know how on earth it comes out from ‘uestions’.

          • Clark

            Cut the rhetoric please.

            Yes, I hadn’t noted the darkening in colour of areas which proceed upward roughly in a vertical line towards the right of the left face visible on the video. However, we see no ejections of material, and audio, on this video or any other, does not record any series of percussions. No immediate or sequenced initiation of descent is associated with the colour changes; global collapse begins shortly after collapse of the mechanical penthouse, as shown on other videos.

            Presumably the darkening was caused by windows breaking as internal structure collapsed, stressing the window frames thus breaking the glass which then of course ceased to reflect daylight. I think the video is genuine, not modified, and it provides additional evidence that internal structure of Building 7 collapsed first, dragging the outside after it. This is consistent with NIST’s partly redacted collapse model, whether or not initiated by explosion in the large cavity in the base of Building 7.

  • Clark

    Lysias, if you can drag yourself away from dodgy mechanical engineering for a while, there’s some history I’d like you to help me look into:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_D._Roosevelt#Fourth_term_and_death.2C_1945

    “On February 14 [1945], he [Franklin D. Roosevelt] held a historic meeting with King Abdulaziz, the founder of Saudi Arabia, a meeting some historians believe holds profound significance in U.S.–Saudi relations even today

    The supporting reference is James MacGregor Burns, (1970). Roosevelt: the soldier of freedom, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. ISBN 978-0-15-678870-0.

    Also worthy of investigation are St John Philby, and the translator between Roosevelt and King Abdulaziz, William A. Eddy who set up the CIA:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_John_Philby

    William Alfred “Bill” Eddy, Ph.D., Col., USMC (March 9, 1896 – May 3, 1962) was a U.S. minister to Saudi Arabia (1944–1946), university professor and college president (1936–42), and United States Marine Corps officer—serving in World War I and World War II, and U.S. intelligence officer.
    . . .
    From 1943 to 1945, he was the U.S. Minister to Saudi Arabia, a consultant for the Arabian American Oil Company (Aramco) and an instrumental figure in the development of the United States’ relationship with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern countries. He was a key figure in the formation of the CIA.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonel_Bill_Eddy

    • lysias

      The Quincy Agreement:

      From 14 February [1945], President Roosevelt and King Abdul Aziz of Saudi Arabia met aboard the Quincy. During the meeting, President Roosevelt tried to persuade Saud to give support for Jewish immigration to Palestine and hoped that Ibn Saud might be able to offer constructive advice on the Palestine issue. There, Roosevelt and Saud concluded a secret agreement in which the U.S. would provide Saudi Arabia military security – military assistance, training and a military base at Dhahran in Saudi Arabia – in exchange for secure access to supplies of oil.

      Wikipedia — strangely, but perhaps predictably — omits what was eventually concluded with respect to Palestine:

      “I would take no action, in my capacity as Chief of the Executive Branch of this Government, which might prove hostile to the Arab people,” Roosevelt later wrote to the Saudi king in a follow up letter.

      Here’s the text of the letter.

      • lysias

        Significantly, when Roosevelt’s successor Truman recognized the State of Israel in 1948, he totally ignored Roosevelt’s commitment in the letter.

        • Clark

          Lysias, thanks for the links.

          Truman’s betrayal of Roosevelt’s promise probably provoked considerable resentment. However, Saudi-inspired religious extremists have been sent as proxies against the spread of Soviet/Russian influence ever since. It’s still happening now; Syria has a Russian naval base but no US bases, so Saudi-inspired Salafists are sent against Syria:

          https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/secret-pentagon-report-reveals-west-saw-isis-as-strategic-asset-b99ad7a29092

          Osama bin Laden was a rebel against this long-standing cooperation. There’s no indication that he was involved in 9/11, but his group of collaborators would hold much resentment towards the US; hence the Embassy bombings. Further, their insight into this history of US/Saudi relations is a great threat to the cosy US/Saudi collaboration.

          The US policy of “decapitation”, killing the leaders of those who rebel against Saudi Arabia, makes a lot more sense in this light. The CIA is scared of losing control over their proxy army, so the knowledge of the history is the fundamental target, just as it is at Wikipedia. The betrayed, angry leaderless underlings run amok, hitting targets in the Middle East and Europe, but the US is spared because it can’t be reached without subverting CIA-Saudi cooperation at the US embassy in Jeddah (see Springmann).

          Far from arguing whether the US demolished their own buildings, we should be pointing out that a tiny group of rebels labelled Al Qaeda, with hardly any national support, managed to hit targets in the US emblematic of their betrayers.

          • Chris Jones

            Good stuff Clarke. You’re proving yourself as a true free thinker and fighter. Have you ever thought about becoming a civic nationalist English patriot truth fighter?? Or would this just be too ‘parochial’ for your taste? After all, anyone who loves their country is simply a deluded knuckle dragging bigot right?? Those pesky small minded Tibetans, Palestinians and Lesothians right?

      • Clark

        Lysias, I’ve edited at Wikipedia for a few years and I’ve seen how things get sanitised. Actual state secrets and libellous material get removed in accordance law. Beyond that, Wikipedia rules have to be adhered to, but vested interests have editors skilled in using Wikipedia rules to their advantage.

        Verifiable material may not be removed. That’s called “vandalism” and will be flagged as a rule violation by the site’s software and the material will be restored. That “The Quincy Agreement” redirects to the USS Quincy page suggests that the Quincy agreement once had a page of its own. I strongly suspect that someone advocated to have it merged into the page about the warship on which the agreement was made. Other relevant sourced material seems to have been distributed about various articles – for instance, there’s a section in the article about Great Bitter Lake, but you’d never guess from it that the translator was an intelligence officer instrumental in setting up the CIA; you’d think he was just a colonel in the marines.

  • Dave

    When it happened there was a gasp of “oh my God” and the narrative of “Muslims to blame” was immediately promoted and sat easily with a growing prejudice against Muslims due to mass immigration and a need “to defend ourselves”.

    And who dare say anything different, because “treason never prospers, because if it prospered, none dare call it treason”. That is if the lunatics are in charge, who dare call them lunatics?

    But once you take an interest in the technical details and what was need to carry it out, it becomes an obvious inside job, and due to the planning required all the world’s secret services must have known, but couldn’t officially say a thing, because if the cabal in charge of US were prepared to commit such a crime against (not) “their own people”, best to go along with it and hope for the best!

    The staged/false flag events since 9/11 have also been obvious to any basic inspection, which has raised the question of why, why so obvious, why no real attempt to make it look real?

    I think the answer is to let everyone who matters know who is really responsible, so they don’t “by mistake” launch an official investigation that will deliver the truth. That follows Bush’s comment “you are either with us, or against us”. In other words if you are a truth seeker you will portrayed as an enemy of US/Israel and suffer the consequences. Blog martyrs spread the message, hopefully not in the wilderness, but Governments know they should, but can’t, in the public interest!

    • Clark

      Part of the reason for this site, and indeed for the 9/11 Commission Report, is that the initial accusations after 9/11 were not really suitable for promoting the “War on Terror”. Nineteen hijackers were quickly named, but unfortunately for the US fifteen of them were Saudi Arabians, exactly the sort of Wahabbist-inspired extremists that the US had been deploying as proxy forces against its official enemies for decades. Here is George Bush’s speech on 20 September 2001:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CSPbzitPL8

      At 1 minute 27 seconds:

      “…it’s goal is remaking the world and imposing its radical beliefs on people everywhere. The terrorists practice a fringe form of Islamic extremism that has been rejected by Muslim scholars and the vast majority of Muslim clerics, a fringe movement that perverts the peaceful teaching of Islam. The terrorist directive commands them to kill Christians and Jews, to kill all Americans, and to make no distinctions between military and civilians, including women and children.”

      But this is precisely the description of Wahabbism, the state religion of the US ally Saudi Arabia; precisely the attributes that have made its adherents so useful as proxy forces for the US. At 2:06 the speech continues:

      “This group and its leader, a person named Osama bin Laden are linked to many other organisations in different countries, including the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, and the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan.”

      Uzbekistan. Where our host, Craig Murray, was sent to be British Ambassador.

      And what did he find there? The Uzbek authorities were dragging in Muslims by the hundreds and torturing them to extract false confessions of terrorism. The victims were then sent for “trial”, and found guilty of terrorism on the basis of their false confession. Complaints of duress were struck from the record by order of the “judges”. These “convictions” were given to the CIA to be sent back to Washington, as “proof” of the need for the “War on Terror”. Under the US-UK Intelligence Sharing Agreement, they were sent to Westminster and used there, too.

      The US also swiftly invaded Afghanistan and captured many Muslims there, taking them to “Black Site” prisons, including Guantanamo. They, too, were tortured until they gave false confessions of terrorism:

      https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/16/-sp-guantanamo-diary-false-confession-slahi

      “Just tell me the right answer. Is it good to say yes or to say no?” I asked. At that point I hoped I was involved in something so I could admit to it and relieve myself of writing about every practicing Muslim I ever met, and every Islamic organisation I ever heard of. It would have been much easier to admit to a true crime and say that’s that.
      “This confession is consistent with the intels we and other agencies possess,_____________ said.
      “I am happy.”
      “Is the story true?” asked __________.
      “Look, these people I was involved with are bad people anyway, and should be put under lock and key. And as to myself, I don’t care as long as you are pleased. So if you want to buy, I am selling.”
      “But we have to check with the other agencies, and if the story is incorrect, they’re gonna find out,”
      “If you want the truth, this story didn’t happen,” I said sadly.

      I used every opportunity to make myself look as bad as I could.

      Look! for God’s sake! This was all to distract from the original evidence that some of the US’s CIA-handled proxies had struck targets in the US itself (with help, no doubt). They couldn’t admit that the US was committed to protecting Saudi Wahabbist extremism under the 1945 Quincy agreement and frequently made use of it, so they deliberately exaggerated the problem, magnified it out of all proportion to create a haystack of Muslim “terrorists” around their own needle of Wahabbists!

      “We’re going to attack seven countries in five years” revealed Gen. Wesley Clark.

      And Saudi Arabia, the true source then and now, has never been on that list.

      “Normal service will be resumed as quickly as possible”
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jjwj25mI2zY

      • Uzmark

        Clark, I am trying to follow the point, but are you saying that you think these 19 named muppets actually did hijack/fly planes into the buildings?

  • Paul Barbara

    @ Kempe August 6, 2016 at 13:49
    ‘Start with this:-
    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/17/nyregion/17lindauer.html?_r=0
    Even if she’s legitimate she’s quoting a conveniently unnamed source and ask yourself why it’s taken 15 years for this information to surface. The question of when the WTC was rigged for demolition has always been a problem for the conspiracy community, now after all this time someone remembers seeing some mysterious vans. Very convenient.’

    ‘CIA Asset Susan Lindauer blows the whistle on 9/11, Iraq ‘:
    http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=197680.0

    http://truthjihad.blogspot.com/2011/01/cia-asset-susan-lindauer-blows-whistle.html

    Saturday, January 8, 2011
    CIA Asset Susan Lindauer blows the whistle on 9/11, Iraq 
    ‘…Lindauer
    While I was writing my book, I had a high-ranking State Department official, who has a very very high, top-top-top security classification, and I cannot name him for you because I don’t want to hurt his reputation. He’s close to retirement, he’s going to have a pension–they would crush him if he was ever exposed, I suspect.  He thinks it too. He says that a couple of weeks before 9/11, at the end of August, for about two weeks, strange vans were arriving at the World Trade Center at three o’ clock in the morning. They were staying from about three o’ clock to about four-thirty or five. They were coming in for a brief period. And he swore to me that he personally had investigated the janitorial services, and he said “I know first hand how many employees the janitorial service had, what their trucks looked like, what their revenues were like, where they lived.” He said “we know the addresses.” We are confident that none of the people from the janitorial services were tied to these trucks. It had never happened before, it was a unique thing. This was not a constant thing like over a six month period. It was a strange anomaly right before (the attack on) the World Trade Center. And he was convinced that this was government-level thermite, government-level weapons, that had been put into either the stairwells or the elevator shafts. And he is convinced that this is when it happened.’

    Notice anything? The interview was in 2011; Susan Lindauer was imprisonedfor a year (they wanted to make it ten years, and forcibly drug her, so she would never be judged OK to realease) and GAGGED for ten years – now I suspect that even you can add 2001 + 10 and get the answer correct, 2011. Penny beginning to drop?

    Now, re your ‘…now after all this time someone remembers seeing some mysterious vans. Very convenient.’
    That ‘someone’ who Susan refuses to name (for reasons she gave) was, in her words, ‘..a high-ranking State Department official, who has a very very high, top-top-top security classification…..’

    OK? Not just ‘Joe Blogs’, but ‘ ‘..a high-ranking State Department official, who has a very very high, top-top-top security classification…..’….

    Comprende?

    • Clark

      Paul, note Lindauer’s words:

      “I had a high-ranking State Department official, who has a very very high, top-top-top security classification, and I cannot name him for you because I don’t want to hurt his reputation”

      Those are exactly the people whose statements we should be suspicious of. The State Department is dominated by neocons, and his reputation can hardly be damaged by “admitting” to seeing vans, can it? I’m becoming more and more convinced; explosive demolition theories are disinfo, psy-op; cover to discredit the Truth movement.

      Similarly, we don’t know who supplied the dust samples containing “thermitic particles”, do we? Easy to get NIST not to test their samples (making it look like they were covering up demolition) ‘cos they’d modelled the collapses rather thoroughly and knew they were gravity-driven anyway.

      PS. you beat me to it – I have a question for Kempe, too.

      • Clark

        Paul, note that this “high-ranking State Department official, who has a very very high, top-top-top security classification” DIDN’T give Lindauer any direct, primary testimony about a demolition team. Why would that be? With a security clearance like that, who could have kept it from him? Nah. I’d like to know who he is because he’s double-gaming Lindauer.

        • Clark

          Why the fuck did he investigate the janitors? He’s got his clearance, he knew the times and dates; he could have accessed the WTC security access records, find the end of the paper trail that would lead back to the demolition team. No, this stinks.

          • Clark

            So this top (neocon dominated) State Department bod saw these vans, was suspicious enough to investigate the janitors, could requestion the janitors’ records – addresses, transactions – but he didn’t even bother recording the license plate numbers of the vans, and didn’t even mention it until Lindauer was un-gagged and writing her book? Can this get any smellier?

  • Clark

    Kempe, what’s your problem with Susan Lindauer and her primary testimony? Specifically, I mean her revelations about CIA foreknowledge that it seems she was locked up and gagged for, not her far more recent speculations about demolition since Truthers have had the chance to pressure her.

    Likewise, David Shayler went a bit mad and became a pod-planes Truther, but that doesn’t discredit his whistleblowing about the MI6 plot to assassinate Gaddafi. Similarly, establishment persecution hasn’t done Craig’s state of mind much good, the difference being that he admits to his emotional problems rather than trying to hide them and pretend he’s unaffected. Being widely disbelieved and ridiculed does one’s head in; no surprise about that.

    • Clark

      “…since Truthers have had the chance to pressure her” – and a top, top top-secretive neocon has had the chance to seed misleading and non-evidenced insinuations of demolition to her.

    • Paul Barbara

      Replying to Clark multiposts:
      ‘…The State Department is dominated by neocons, and his reputation can hardly be damaged by “admitting” to seeing vans, can it? I’m becoming more and more convinced; explosive demolition theories are disinfo, psy-op; cover to discredit the Truth movement….’
      Actually, he doesn’t ‘admit’ to anything – he swears to it. It was only his ‘reputation’ that Susan (and he) were worried about, but that he would be ‘crushed’ and risk his pension – I would add, his life) – (I have frequently informed police officers that the Tetra radios they are issued are very dangerous, and given them links to check the info out. Many already knew – and quite a few have said words to the effect ‘I’m near retirement, I’ll just have to risk it’; others ‘We have been told either accept the radios or leave the service’, others ‘Oh, but we have been given free health checks’ -to which I replied ‘Why do you think they are offering free health checks? Have they ever done it before? And do you suppose they would tell you the truth?’ – so worries about losing their job or pensions were more important than very real health risks).

      ‘….Those are exactly the people whose statements we should be suspicious of. The State Department is dominated by neocons, and his reputation can hardly be damaged by “admitting” to seeing vans, can it? I’m becoming more and more convinced; explosive demolition theories are disinfo, psy-op; cover to discredit the Truth movement….’
      All Departments have good and bad people – as Cathy O’Brien and Mark Philips have pointed out in their books – good people in the police, CIA, military, customs and others are the reasons they are still alive.
      Obama has purged a great number of high military personnel – ‘List Of Military Elite Purged And Fired Under Obama, Compiled By General Paul Vallely, 3-17-14’ https://jhaines6.wordpress.com/2014/11/14/list-of-military-elite-purged-and-fired-under-obama-compiled-by-general-paul-vallely-3-17-14/ ‘…Since Barack Obama has been in the White House, high ranking military officers have been removed from their positions at a rate that is absolutely unprecedented.Things have gotten so bad that a number of retired generals are publicly speaking out about the ‘purg’ of the U.S. military that they believe is taking place. As you will see below, dozens of highly decorated military leaders have been dismissed from their positions over the past few years. So why is this happening? What is going on right now is absolutely crazy especially during a time of peace. Is there a deliberate attempt to reshape the military and remove those who don’t adhere to the proper ‘viewpoints’ ? Does someone out there feel a need to get officers that won’t cooperate out of the way?

      Throughout world history, whatever comes next after a military purge is never good.
      If this continues, what is the U.S. military going to look like in a few years?

      Perhaps you are reading this and you think that ‘purge’ is too strong a word for what is taking place. Well, justconsider the following quotes from some very highly decorated retired officers:

      -Retired Army Major General Paul Vallely:The White House protects their own.That’s why they stalled on the investigation into fast and furious, Benghazi and Obamacare.He’s intentionally weakening and gutting our military, Pentagon and reducing us as a superpower, and anyone in the ranks who disagrees or speaks out is being purged.

      -Retired Army Major General Patrick Brady: There is no doubt he (Obama) is intent on emasculating the military and will fire anyone who disagrees with him.
      -Retired Army Lt. General William G. Jerry Boykin:Over the past three years, it is unprecedented for the number of four-star generals to be relieved of duty, and not necessarily relieved for cause.

      -Retired Navy Captain Joseph John:I believe there are more than 137 officers who have been forced out or given bad evaluation reports so they will never make Flag (officer), because of their failure to comply to certain views.

      A Pentagon official who asked to remain nameless because they were not authorized to speak on the matter said even young officers, down through the ranks have been told not to talk about Obama or the politics of the White House. They are purging everyone and if you want to keep your job just keep your mouth shut. Now this trend appears to be accelerating.

      http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/why-are-dozens-of-high-ranking-officers-being-purged-from-the-u-s-military ‘.

      Whistleblowers have every reason to be afraid of the consequences, which is why there haven’t been many, many more. Not everyone is as courageous as Susan Lindauer and others who have had the guts and integriity to do so.

      Somewhere else you have said (in essence) that thehighjack pilots weretrained on US bases, which is why they could fly so well and do the complicated manouvre to hit the Pentagon (which professional pilots with a tremendously long experience have said even they could not do). Yet Hani Hanjour is supposedly the pilot of the plane ‘said’ to have hit the Pentagon, Had the Yanks trained him so well on bases? Well, try this (and if you had REALLY studied 9/11, you would have known this from day one: his flying ‘skills’ were a bad joke: ‘How the FBI and 9/11 Commission Suppressed Key Evidence about Hani Hanjour, alleged hijack pilot of AAL 77’:
      http://www.globalresearch.ca/how-the-fbi-and-9-11-commission-suppressed-key-evidence-about-hani-hanjour-alleged-hijack-pilot-of-aal-77/14290
      ‘…The pattern played out again on August 16-17, 2001 when Hanjour attempted to rent a plane at Freeway Airport, in Bowie, Maryland, about twenty miles from Washington. Although Hanjour presented his FAA license, according to Newsday the Freeway airport manager insisted that instructors first accompany him on a test flight to evaluate his piloting skills. During three such flights over two days in a single-engine Cessna 172, instructors Sheri Baxter and Ben Conner observed what others had before them. Hanjour had trouble controlling and landing the aircraft. Afterward, Baxter interviewed Hanjour extensively about his flight training and experience, and also reviewed his flight log, which documented 600 hours of flight time. On this basis she and Conner declined to approve a current license rating until Hanjour returned for more training. On their recommendation, Freeway’s chief instructor Marcel Bernard refused to rent Hanjour a plane.[18] Notice, this was less than a month before 9/11. When I reached Bernard by phone he confirmed the details of the story by Newsday.[19] So did Ben Conner when I spoke with him.[20] Conner also emphasized that the issue was not simply Hanjour’s poor English. It was everything, i.e., his general ineptitude….’

      COMPRENDE?

      • Clark

        My multiple comments indicate that I’m using my brain; I keep having afterthoughts as I think about the issues.

        Thanks for the info of a purge in the US military, NOT the neocon-dominated State Department, I note. I suggest you look into the dismissals and see if they tend to be the ones that oppose needless foreign wars and cooperation with Saudi Arabia. Are a lot of them sympathetic towards Wesley Clark’s views, for instance? Many military personnel object to needless wars because their friends and colleagues tend to get killed. It’s meant to be the Department of Defense – offence isn’t what they signed up to do.

        This top State Department bod who’s been whispering in Susan Lindauer’s ear; IF what he says is true, he’s presumably a fucking traitor. IF he’s honest and right, demolitions killed the majority of people on 9/11. He has access to the records, presumably has the license plate numbers of the vans, but all he’s done about it is investigate some janitors and tell Lindauer, who doesn’t have his high clearance and is under a campaign to discredit her – what a cowardly bastard, using her to disseminate his evidence, putting her life at risk instead of his own (if risk there is). Two thousand of the people who paid his wages and whom he’s supposed to serve have been mass-murdered. But no, his fucking pension matters more to him. Clearly not the calibre of Craig Murray, Susan Lindauer, Sibel Edmonds, Annie Machon etc.

        • Paul Barbara

          If he had further information, I’m sure he would have passed it on. He volunteered the information when Susan Lindauer was already writing her book. So, he’s a ‘fucking traitor’ for providing the information?
          Surely, that would make Susan a ‘fucking bigger traitor’ for writing a book that exposes that the US government, military, CIA, FBI etc LIED about the abomination of 9/11?
          My your ‘logic’ astounds me.
          You can call him a coward if you wish; shortly before, you were calling him a disinfo merchant, trying to discredit the Truth movement.
          I thank him for providing info which helps our knowledge of the 9/11 False Flag operation.

          • Clark

            Why tell Susan Lindauer, of all people? Hasn’t she been through enough, with the government imprisoning her, silencing her and trying to discredit her with accusations of mental illness? Why on Earth use someone accused of being a fantasist as his conduit? Can’t he post his evidence to cryptome.org or Wikileaks? Can’t he mail it anonymously to a hundred senators?

            Is there ANY other source for Mr State Department’s “testimony”? If not, the ONLY reason for him to “leak” it via Lindauer must be to discredit her, by tricking her into repeating his lies.

            Paul, thanks for this. I find Lindauer and her first-hand testimony credible, so this is strong evidence that this theory of explosive demolition of the Twin Towers is State Department disinfo.

          • Clark

            Sorry, I should make this perfectly clear. If Lindauer is the only source reporting Mr State Department’s “leak”, that means he only told ONE person, who’s totally unsuitable because she’s accused of being crazy. There must be more than one person he can trust, and there are other outlets he could use.

            So who else has reported his “leak”? Post links or accept logic.

          • Clark

            Also, if Mr State Department has lied to Lindauer to trick her into discrediting herself, it increases the credibility of her first-hand testimony; why else bother?

      • Clark

        I’ve no idea if Hanjour was the one of that team who piloted; maybe he was just cover. How are we supposed to know which one did what after the hijack? Probably the names would be muddled about in the cover-up anyway. The thing to do is to work out which suspects did get military-grade pilot training, and see if you can place one on each hijacked flight.

        And remember, civilian pilots are taught how to fly safely, and within the design tolerances of their aircraft. All their training focusses towards that. Military training is rather different (as you could imagine if you could be bothered COMPRENDE?); If a pilot doesn’t care that the aircraft might be over-stressed in a manoeuvre and become uncertifiable for flight thereafter, it can be pushed well beyond its operational limits and into its safety margins, which are considerable.

        • Paul Barbara

          Many airline pilots are military veterans. YOU tell me who the fuck was trained to military standard; how on earth do you expect me to know that? Perhaps the USAF or CIA will gladly furnish me with the information????

          • Clark

            USAF personnel probably have something to say but they’ll be under official secrets restrictions.

            CIA is compartmentalised; we’d never even know if any given spokesperson was in a relevant compartment.

            We’ll just have to work it out as best we can. Whistleblowers’ personal testimony, 1945 history and ongoing US/Saudi cooperation in Libya and Syria all point to Saudi hijackers and pilots. All we’ve got for explosive demolition is second-hand suggestions, some untraceable dust, and Gage with under a hundred structural engineers (plus a couple of thousand professionals in various fields of decreasing relationship).

    • Kempe

      ” Kempe, what’s your problem with Susan Lindauer and her primary testimony? Specifically, I mean her revelations about CIA foreknowledge that it seems she was locked up and gagged for ”

      From what I can gather she didn’t mention claims of CIA foreknowledge until 2008; that is after she’d been released from her second spell of detention for psychological evaluation. We ought to question why it took her so long. Other than that she just strikes me as another delusional attention seeker quoting unnamed and therefore unverifiable sources.

      • Clark

        Kempe, I’ll agree that there’s a grey area between Lindauer’s claims and what has been officially admitted, but then the CIA routinely employ plausible deniability. Lindauer was imprisoned on a US Air Force base whereas a civilian psychiatric facility would seem more appropriate for mere delusions. OK, she was charged with “acting as an unregistered agent of a foreign government”, but that was dropped and could have been concocted merely as cover for incarcerating her. And then there’s the gagging order; again, over-the-top for a mere Truther of which there are so many.

        Lindauer also claims insider knowledge that Syria rather than Libya did the Lockerbie bombing. This is consistent with Craig’s account that Lockerbie was pinned onto Libya for political reasons, but I don’t know to what extent Lindauer’s story converges with Craig’s further than that.

        https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2007/06/lockerbie/

        Lindauer’s contact Fuisz certainly seems to have worked for the CIA. There seems to be enough of Lindauer’s claims that do check out to make her first-hand testimony worth taking seriously – forget her more recent demolition theory stuff; there are leagues of Truthers who believe those sorts of things but it doesn’t mean they don’t remember what their boss sad to them. I think the next step is to read her book and check her documentation in the appendices.

  • Paul Barbara

    @ Craig The 9/11 Post 3195 28 Jan, 2010 in War in Iraq by craig
    ‘…..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 agree with Craig there. Examples are ‘Chip’ Tatum, happy to commit War Crimes in Vietnam, but refusing Presidential orders to ‘frighten off’ a Presidential candidate, and Terry Reed, happy to assist the illegal War Crimes ‘Contra’ program of mercenary mayhem in Nicaragua, but refusing to continue as soon as he became aware of the tons of cocaine being shipped into the US by CIA assets to pay for it (‘Contragate’/Mena).
    So, enter ‘a certain Middle East country’ co-conspirator, tried and trusted US ‘Black Ops’ conspirator (including in the attack on the USS Liberty). Proven to have no qualms in killing Yanks to order.

    • Clark

      Explosive demolition still needs loads of US-American co-conspirators in NIST, FEMA, all the professional bodies they worked with, a whole team of demolition riggers, and some means of either silencing or confusing the physics and engineering skills of thousands in the US academic and world communities.

      • Clark

        On the other hand, seeding false stories of “controlled demolition” etc. could be done by very few acting anonymously over the Internet. The resulting controversy could all but drown out better founded objections, couldn’t it?

  • Clark

    There’s an assumption that the official announcements were to pull the wool over the eyes of the public, but I think they serve a far more serious purpose.

    It’s all the public servants in government departments, the military and professional bodies that primarily need to be mollified and misdirected; they were all a lot closer to these events than folks like us are. The official excuses will have been tailored primarily to deal with their objections and misgivings.

    This motivation needs to be remembered when we analyse the official excuses.

    • Paul Barbara

      Yeh, and we can safely dismiss all the highly qualified pilots who say it would have been IMPOSSIBLE for ANYONE to fly a Boeing 757 at those speeds at that altitude.
      If you spent more time researching, and less time posting your hunches or dismissive comments on info posted by others, perhaps I wouldn’t have had to remind you that Hani Hanjour couldn’t competently fly a Cessna some three weeks before 9/11.
      Can’t you see that all the ‘training’ and living on US bases, and all the BS flight training at private schools, was to lay a false trail, so they could be officially ‘blamed’ as highjackers.
      It takes YEARS of training to attain a civil airliner licence, and you can’t make competent pilots out of a dumbos, any more than you can make a silk purse out of a pig’s ear. Try researching ‘red herrings’; I’m sure it’s possible to produce some with Gene Modification.

      • Clark

        Sorry, who’s being dismissive? I already said the pilot mightn’t have been Hanjour. And “dumbo” Arabs can learned and practiced flight in Saudi Arabia, too, you know, before they ever got into the US.

        • Paul Barbara

          @ Kempe August 12, 2016 at 12:40
          ” we can safely dismiss all the highly qualified pilots who say it would have been IMPOSSIBLE for ANYONE to fly a Boeing 757 at those speeds at that altitude. ”
          Which must make landing them very difficult.
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bFh2NeD32Y

          That ‘high-speed’ pass was NOT at 530 mph, the speed we are ‘told’ the ‘Boeing’ hit the Pentagon.
          A 777 – 200 series has an approch speed of 136 knots (156.5 mph) http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/commercial/airports/faqs/arcandapproachspeeds.pdf

          I do not dismiss, safely or otherwise, the highly qualified pilots, I was stating that as something which we can assume Clark is doing.
          Always best to humour your types – keeps y’all smiling…- but I try to enlighten youse….silly me.

          • Clark

            Of course suicide pilots always carefully adjust their approach velocity to the optimum given in the specifications, to make a nice, soft landing on the vertical target. Wouldn’t want to shake up the passengers, eh? They might ask for their money back.

          • Clark

            From measurements from the video linked by Kempe, that aircraft is moving at about 400 miles per hour. Workings:

            7 frames from nose to tail passing fixed background point near closest point of pass.

            7 frames out of 710 frames in total, 28.4 seconds total video duration.
            Pass time = 7 / 710 x 28.4 = 0.28 seconds
            Aircraft length = 47.32m or 54.47m depending upon Boeing 757 variant

            47.32 / 0.28 = 169 m/s = 608 km/h = 380 mph
            54.47 / 0.28 = 195 m/s = 700 km/h = 438 mph

            Anyone care to double check by working out the Dopler shift?

        • Paul Barbara

          Well, here’s a reply I received from Pilots for 9/11 Truth: Tough titty, as they say in the States!:
          http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=23013&st=0&gopid=10815615&#entry10815615
          ‘That is a popular video duhbunkers like to use in a poor attempt to prove the speeds reported on 9/11 were possible.

          However, what they fail to understand and research, is that the 757 in the above video was operating within the flight envelope of a standard 757, unlike the aircraft on 9/11.

          A description from the Captain on that flight (an RNZAF 757) –

          I was the captain of that particular shot, filmed during a Squadron open-day a couple of years ago. It’s part of a routine that has been performed over thirty times at various airshows and practices around the world including RIAT Fairford 2003, Kemble 2006, RAF Waddington 2006, Warbirds Over Wanaka 2004, Avalon 2005.

          The low pass is flown into wind at 350 knots (indicated) and 100 feet above the runway. It’s a 2g pull up to between 45 and 55 degrees nose up pitch (although there has been higher) and the zoom climb ends at an altitude between 8000 and 10000 feet depending on the type of pull up used. The sequence does not end with a loop as some of the readers speculate, but in fact with a 60 degree wingover at around 220 knots. It is easily possible to enhance this maneouver with a steeper climb and bank but there is no need – it is spectacular already, and safe. – read more here

          This is how the above airshow maneuver compares to the flights from 9/11 – see RNZAF 757 data point in the middle of diagram, (compared to the 9/11 Aircraft data points to the far right).

          Reduced: 41% of original size [ 1920 x 1080 ] – Click to view full image

          See this video to understand the above diagram –

          Hope this helps…

          • Clark

            Thank you to Paul, and to the anonymous captain, for confirming my calculations (350 knots) and my earlier comment:

            “…the 757 in the above video was operating within the flight envelope of a standard 757, unlike the aircraft on 9/11″ […] It is easily possible to enhance this maneouver with a steeper climb and bank but there is no need – it is spectacular already, and safe“.

            http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-93/#comment-618217

            “And remember, civilian pilots are taught how to fly safely, and within the design tolerances of their aircraft. […] If a pilot doesn’t care that the aircraft might be over-stressed in a manoeuvre and become uncertifiable for flight thereafter, it can be pushed well beyond its operational limits and into its safety margins, which are considerable“.

  • Clark

    Anyway, I should have gone out ages ago. You carry on and have fun trying to pin it all on Israel (for which I don’t claim complete innocence – far from it); there are plenty biased enough to agree. And spare a thought for what it’s like to grow up in Saudi Arabia as the Wahabbists have to – beheadings, floggings, religious police, trials where the accused don’t even get to see the evidence against them. Saudi Arabia is under no threat from the US. None at all. They have the oil and the Quincy Agreement.

  • Dave

    @ Clark

    I know its difficult when your idol has feet of clay or worse, but come to terms with it by understanding that the Likud Zionists are not the voice of Israel/Jews but an aberration. See “Zionism, the real enemy of the Jews”, by Alan Hart.

  • Clark

    Lysias; Eddy’s book:

    http://susris.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/100222-fdr-abdulaziz-eddy.pdf

    It’s not particularly revealing, though it does illustrate that Saudi Arabia began its journey into the modern world in 1945. I think it still has a long way to go (not that other nations haven’t):

    “You can’t run a country by a book of religion,
    – Not by a heap or a lump or a smidgen,
    – Of foolish rules of ancient date,
    – Designed to make you all feel great,
    – While you fold, spindle and mutilate,
    – Those Unbelievers from a neighboring state”

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIBOHMoXD6E

  • Clark

    Regarding Susan Lindauer’s first-hand testimony of CIA foreknowledge that hijacked aircraft would ram the Twin Towers, after the first tower was hit, is it so that staff were directed to remain in their offices in the other tower? Knowing that both towers were to be rammed, the CIA should have intervened and made damn sure as many as possible were evacuated. Is this reflected in the out-of-court compensation settlements?

    In fact, with hijacked aircraft loose and knowing of the plot and two of the targets, both towers should have been evacuated immediately. Can some lawyer tell me if that’s criminal complicity on the part of the CIA?

    • Clark

      That’s more scandal than blowback, no matter what Craig says. It looks like the CIA helped to maximise the carnage.

    • Paul Barbara

      Actually, many people who exited Tower 2 after Tower 1 was hit, were told it was safe to go back, and many did and died. A few played safe, and didn’t take this official pronouncement, and lived to tell the tale.

  • Paul Barbara

    I’ll repost this here, as it is quite important:
    @ Paul Barbara
    August 14, 2016 at 03:33
    Well, here’s a reply I received from Pilots for 9/11 Truth: Tough titty, as they say in the States!:
    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=23013&st=0&gopid=10815615&#entry10815615
    ‘That is a popular video duhbunkers like to use in a poor attempt to prove the speeds reported on 9/11 were possible.

    However, what they fail to understand and research, is that the 757 in the above video was operating within the flight envelope of a standard 757, unlike the aircraft on 9/11.

    A description from the Captain on that flight (an RNZAF 757) –

    I was the captain of that particular shot, filmed during a Squadron open-day a couple of years ago. It’s part of a routine that has been performed over thirty times at various airshows and practices around the world including RIAT Fairford 2003, Kemble 2006, RAF Waddington 2006, Warbirds Over Wanaka 2004, Avalon 2005.

    The low pass is flown into wind at 350 knots (indicated) and 100 feet above the runway. It’s a 2g pull up to between 45 and 55 degrees nose up pitch (although there has been higher) and the zoom climb ends at an altitude between 8000 and 10000 feet depending on the type of pull up used. The sequence does not end with a loop as some of the readers speculate, but in fact with a 60 degree wingover at around 220 knots. It is easily possible to enhance this maneouver with a steeper climb and bank but there is no need – it is spectacular already, and safe. – read more here

    This is how the above airshow maneuver compares to the flights from 9/11 – see RNZAF 757 data point in the middle of diagram, (compared to the 9/11 Aircraft data points to the far right).

    Reduced: 41% of original size [ 1920 x 1080 ] – Click to view full image

    See this video to understand the above diagram –

    Hope this helps…

    • Clark

      Thank you to Paul, and to the anonymous captain, for confirming my calculations (350 knots) and my earlier comment:

      “…the 757 in the above video was operating within the flight envelope of a standard 757, unlike the aircraft on 9/11″ […] It is easily possible to enhance this maneouver with a steeper climb and bank but there is no need – it is spectacular already, and safe“.

      http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-93/#comment-618217

      “And remember, civilian pilots are taught how to fly safely, and within the design tolerances of their aircraft. […] If a pilot doesn’t care that the aircraft might be over-stressed in a manoeuvre and become uncertifiable for flight thereafter, it can be pushed well beyond its operational limits and into its safety margins, which are considerable“.

      • Clark

        I suspect that this also answers objections that the Twin Towers were designed to survive aircraft impacts. If possible, someone should check the impact velocity the buildings were designed to withstand; it would almost certainly be within the flight envelope of typical aircraft, and probably much lower, near the recommended approach speeds used near a major city, far from the absolute maximum achievable with aircraft being pushed as hard as possible.

        Kinetic energy equals half times mass times velocity squared (KE = 1/2mv^2), so doubling the velocity quadruples the destructive energy. Tripling the velocity increases the energy nine-fold.

  • Clark

    Paul, I have patiently answered point after point, considering evidence as I go. I think it is time to admit to yourself that by making exaggerated claims, being partisan with the evidence, and ignoring all evidence that indicates CIA and State Department complicity with Saudi-inspired extremists while trying to pin everything onto Israel, you’re actually doing harm to the cause of 9/11 Truth. Thanks for the points you’ve raised though; you’ve motivated me to research matters and clarify my thinking.

    Anyway, I have to shut down now. I’m packing up my computer and taking it along when I set off for the festival, but I’ll have no connection or mains there and I expect I’ll be off-line for the next couple of weeks. Best wishes.

    • Clark

      And Paul, in case you’re under the misapprehension that Israel and Saudi Arabia are implacable enemies, I remind you that they are both allies of the US. For decades, Saudi Arabia sent its young, religiously indoctrinated extremists to oppose the spread of communism. The USSR fell, but the great competition for oil continues, waged by the US sphere against the Russian sphere. Saudi-inspired extremists are, right now, being sent against Syrian government forces and if Syria falls they will be sent against Iran. This is what we must oppose, and we’re not doing very well:

      http://www.killick1.plus.com/map.jpg

      • Paul Barbara

        Congrats on working out the speed so well. I DO NOT try to ‘pin everything on Israel’; I do say they were complicit.
        I am fully aware that Israel and Saudi Arabia are ‘buddies’ murderers of a feather flock together’.
        When you can spare the time, watch ‘Zero’ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gETF0_SOXcg
        You will find it very enlightening, regarding the ridiculous behaviour of the so-called ‘highjackers’, creating a red-herring trail almost too ridiculous for words.
        And I recommend you revisit Rob Balsamo’s post; the ‘planes’ were way over the top, and outside of the limits possible without catastrophic failure, never mind ability to control.
        Remember, he is the expert, and gives the graphs etc. to pprove that such flights were impossible.
        If you disagree, why don’t you contact him via Pilots for 9/11 Truth forum? I’m sure he will ‘sort you out’.

    • Paul Barbara

      Exactly! 9/11 was not an Islamic terrorist attack; where I disagree with Giuliani is, there haven’t been any SINCE Obomba, either!

      • Clark

        Paul Barbara, the Wahabbist corruption of Islam is the means by which the Saudi ruling families project their power internationally. It is by no means unique; throughout history, power structures have abused religions as a means of controlling the population, especially for whipping up fervour for attacking rival nations.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_ash-Sheikh

        The Al ash-Sheikh […] is Saudi Arabia’s leading religious family. They are the descendants of Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, the 18th century founder of the Wahhabi form of Sunni Islam which is today dominant in Saudi Arabia. In Saudi Arabia, the family is second in prestige only to the Saudi royal family, the Al Saud, with whom they formed a power-sharing arrangement nearly 300 years ago. The arrangement, which persists to this day, is based on the Al Saud maintaining the Al ash-Sheikh’s authority in religious matters and the Al ash-Sheikh supporting the Al Saud’s political authority.

        Although the Al ash-Sheikh’s domination of the religious establishment has diminished in recent decades, they still hold most of the important religious posts in Saudi Arabia, and are closely linked to the Al Saud by a high degree of intermarriage. Because of the Al ash Sheikh’s religious-moral authority, the arrangement between the two families remains crucial in maintaining the Saudi royal family’s legitimacy to rule the country.”

        This is the source of so-called “Islamic extremism”. It isn’t religion; it’s political power, and it is no surprise that it results in so-called terrorism. It needs to be recognised so the problem can be faced and addressed. Saudi Arabia are doing very well at corrupting Islam the world over. They throw tons of their petrodollars at it; building and funding mosques and madrasas , training up imams, supplying their inflammatory books and their own version of the Quran.

        Head-in-the-sand is not going to halt the spread of “political Islam”. It’s a serious problem and it needs to be faced.

  • lysias

    I’m currently reading the book “Camp X” about the WWII-era OSS/BSC/SOE training facility in Whitby, Ontario, a short distance east of Toronto.

    Eddy appears in the book. He was a State Department diplomat at the time, but he cooperated in secret operations in places like Morocco with OSS operatives like Carleton Coon.

  • Paul Barbara

    I’m no fan of Hitler, but here are some quotes which should clarify his rise to power, and subsequent events:
    Winston Churchill & other WWI & II Quotes:

    ‘Sailing And Sinking The RMS Lusitania: A Century Of Lying America Into War’:
    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article41777.htm

    World War 1
    “Should Germany merchandise (do business) again in the next 50 years we have led this war (WW1) in vain.”
    – Winston Churchill in The Times (1919)

    World War 2
    “We will force this war upon Hitler, if he wants it or not.” – Winston Churchill (1936 broadcast)

    “Germany becomes too powerful. We have to crush it.” – Winston Churchill (November 1936 speaking to US – General Robert E. Wood)

    “This war is an English war and its goal is the destruction of Germany.”
    – Winston Churchill (- Autumn 1939 broadcast)

    “The war wasn’t only about abolishing fascism, but to conquer sales markets. We could have, if we had intended so, prevented this war from breaking out without doing one shot, but we didn’t want to.”
    – Winston Churchill to Truman (Fultun, USA March 1946)

    “Germany’s unforgivable crime before WW2 was its attempt to loosen its economy out of the world trade system and to build up an independent exchange system from which the world-finance couldn’t profit anymore. …We butchered the wrong pig.”
    -Winston Churchill (The Second World War – Bern, 1960)

    “We made a monster, a devil out of Hitler. Therefore we couldn’t disavow it after the war. After all, we mobilized the masses against the devil himself. So we were forced to play our part in this diabolic scenario after the war. In no way we could have pointed out to our people that the war only was an economic preventive measure.”
    – US foreign minister James Baker (1992)

    “Not the political doctrine of Hitler has hurled us into this war. The reason was the success of his increase in building a new economy. The roots of war were envy, greed and fear.”
    – Major General J.F.C. Fuller, historian, England

    “We didn’t go to war in 1939 to save Germany from Hitler…or the continent from fascism. Like in 1914, we went to war for the not lesser noble cause that we couldn’t accept a German hegemony over Europe.’- Sunday Correspondent, London (17.9.1989)

    “The enemy is the German Reich and not Nazism, and those who still haven’t understood this, haven’t understood anything.” – Churchill’s chief counselor Robert Lord Vansittart (as said to foreign minister Lord Halifax, September 1940)

          • Kempe

            We have been over this before. The meaning of anti-semitic is commonly understood; your personal views on who semitic people may or may not be are irrelevant.

          • Chris Jones

            Indeed, we’ve been over it many many times. My personal view is irrelevant. What is the actual recognised definition of ‘Semitic people’? It’s important for this to be established before commentators such as yourself try to frame and argument based on a fallacious claim and a misrepresentation. You wouldn’t want people to think that you’re an uninformed reactionary reliant on unsubstantiated accusations and false historical references I’m sure

        • Paul Barbara

          They are not easily verified – I’ll grant you that. But these are:
          Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler: The Astonishing True Story of the American Financiers Who Bankrolled the Nazis
          Sutton, Antony Cyril

          War Is A Racket
          Butler, Smedley Darlington

          Trading with the Enemy: the Nazi-American Money Plot 1933-1949
          Charles Higham

          Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution: The Remarkable True Story of the American Capitalists Who Financed the Russian Communists
          AC Sutton

          Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler
          Antony Cyril Sutton

          The Best Democracy Money Can Buy: An Investigative Reporter Exposes the Truth About Globalization, Corporate Cons and High Finance Fraudsters
          Greg Palast

          The Power and the Glory: Inside the Dark Heart of John Paul II’s Vatican
          David A. Yallop

          Profits of War: Inside the Secret U.S.-Israeli Arms Network
          Ari Ben- Menashe

          Day of Deceit: The Truth about Fdr and Pearl Harbor
          Robert B. Stinnett

          Compromised: Clinton, Bush and the CIA
          Reed, Terry

          Confessions of an Economic Hit Man: The shocking story of how America really took over the world
          Perkins, John

          Operation Gladio: The Unholy Alliance Between the Vatican, the CIA, and the Mafia
          Williams, Paul L.

          Mr. Polk’s War: American Opposition and Dissent, 1846-48
          Schroeder, John H.

          Dark Alliance: The CIA, the Contras, and the Crack Cocaine Explosion
          Gary Webb

          How They Murdered Princess Diana: The Shocking Truth
          Morgan, John

          That’s just a fraction of the books I have read in the last four years. When you have learnt a lot about the way the world and it’s hidden controllers work, it makes it fairly easy to accept stuff even without verification, if it fits in with what you already know.
          I am pretty sure you aren’t really interested in the truth, but if you are, you could do a lot worse than read some of the books I have listed.

  • Paul Barbara

    This clip is that of a very
    important episode of “The
    Truthseeker”, which was taken
    down from RT’s site and which
    had disappeared from YouTube
    for some two years until the
    August 14th publication of this
    article from RT, claiming that
    9/11 was an inside job.

    9/11 Commission Report and
    by other US government study
    groups.

    This 800-pound gorilla in the
    room that is the laughably false
    version of what happened on 9/11
    that has been promulgated by the
    US Government for the past 15
    years must be squashed and the
    truth must be made publicly known
    and the real perpetrators of these
    events must be prosecuted, as the
    first step to stop the genocidal evil
    which has been unleashed upon the
    world, mostly but not limited to
    several defenseless Third World
    Middle Eastern countries.

    This would be a welcome
    development for Jon Cole, from
    Architects and Engineers for 9/11
    Truth, who appears in this episode
    of “The Truthseeker”. When asked
    who bought down the towers, he
    replies:

    “Who didn’t do it was the 19
    hijackers that allegedly flew the
    planes. It is impossible, impossible
    to melt that steel by the office fires,
    the jet fuel, for the collapse itself.
    It’s a physical impossibility. It can
    not be replicated experimentally.
    It defies the laws of physics.”

    RT’s most hard-hitting show ever,
    “The Truthseeker” was canceled
    two years ago, amid ongoing
    complaints by the UK government-
    controlled propaganda television
    network, the BBC to the British
    Office of Communications. “Ofcom”
    is the regulatory agency that issues
    broadcasting licenses and that
    serves as the the UK’s official
    censorship agency for television,
    radio, telecommunications and the
    postal service.

    The Russian government-subsidized
    news outlet, RT apparently canceled
    “The Truthseeker” to maintain its
    broadcasting license in the UK, which
    is where it’s headquartered. The
    upload of this episode is on a YouTube
    channel affiliated with the hacktivist
    group, Anonymous and is not on RT’s
    YouTube site, despite being embedded
    in this RT article.

    Video: (13 mins):
    RT Report: ‘9/11 Was An Inside Job’
    http://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/rt-report-9-11-was-an-inside-job-27806

1 91 92 93 94 95 134

Comments are closed.