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 95 96 97 98 99 134
  • Trowbridge H. Ford

    But it is still just a diversion about why the WTC collapsed rather than that the conspiracy by the 19 alleged hijackers who triggered it.

    At best, the West only alludes to the CIA cockup which allowed them to succeed.

    • Clark

      Trowbridge, I agree that it’s a distraction, but then I think that there’s essentially zero chance that the Twin Towers were pre-rigged with explosives. Most on this thread think (or at least say) the opposite, and regard it as vitally important to convince a critical mass of the public in order to force another investigation. They also wish to absolve Saudi Arabia, al Qaeda or any Muslims whatsoever; they seem to hope that will help stop the continual wars in the Middle East.

      I’d like to hear what you have to say about 9/11, but my experience suggests that this will prove unpopular and several other commenters are likely to start calling us trolls and suggesting that we’re helping to cover up demolition at the WTC.

      I’m sad and lonely today. I hope things are OK with you.

      • Uzmark

        Clark, I don’t see mass denial of Saudi involvement here. They would at the very least have been consulted that so many of their nationals were to be used as patsies, and possible more

        • Clark

          What exactly are “patsies”?

          OK, I know it’s New York, but I wasn’t born in the 1920s, and I need to be able to discuss matters unambiguously. All the 9/11 slang – false flag, inside job, controlled demolition, and probably others I haven’t recognised – it’s like everyone is expected to understand them without them ever having been defined.

          • Uzmark

            Clark, New York 1920 or Oxford 2016 (edition). I think the term is generally understood. People set up, blamed, paraded by the culprits.

          • Clark

            Thanks. That’s not what the relationship between Saudi Arabia, the US covert operations departments and the US hawk politicians is like. The Saudi religious extremists truly are willing to perform suicide attacks for their “religious” (actually indoctrinated) beliefs – they are actually raised from birth to be patsies for Saudi Arabia, and US covert foreign policy makes repeated use of that.

            Saudi power is internally divided between monarchical, political power and religious power:

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

            To my mind, the real question of 9/11 is who, within the US system, knew the attacks were coming, and did they really try to prevent them, or did they let them happen as a pretext for war, and that is what the 9/11 Commission were prevented from investigating:

            http://inplaceoffear.blogspot.co.uk/2008/11/they-didnt-even-try-to-keep-americans.html

            http://inplaceoffear.blogspot.co.uk/2008/11/9-11-warnings-ignored-timeline-summer.html

          • Uzmark

            Clark 13.28: Why do you seem to rule out the neocon usual suspects being central to the the attack (with international partners) rather than just allowing it to happen?

            I know you don’t believe in controlled demolition (even WTC7?), but there are many impossible coincidences and flying feats that would require just that

          • Clark

            Oh I don’t rule out commissioning of the attacks by the neocons, but I strongly suspect that they didn’t need to, and that they knew they didn’t need to – no need for them to take the risk of being exposed. There had already been the embassy bombings. They knew that the Saudi ideology labelled them as apostates just as much as the targets they want the extremists to hit, so all they had to do was watch and wait, and cripple US domestic defences when the time came. Or maybe a third party did some or all of the latter. Or maybe some neocons were in on it and others still don’t know. And perhaps some incompetence was involved.

            These, I think, are the range of scenarios that a proper investigation would have explored.

            I can think of lots of coincidences, but none that required pre-rigged demolition.

    • Node

      Trowbridge

      Here on the 911 thread, all skeptics of the official narrative are lumped together and held responsible for each others’ claims. Yes, it’s a ridiculous debating ploy, but it’s the main tactic of the narrative defenders.

      I’m therefore curious about your claim that 19 Saudi Arabians flew the hijacked planes. If I understand you correctly, you believe that they evaded security with the help of the CIA who they then double-crossed by flying into the buildings. What evidence do you have for this theory?

      • Clark

        Node, that seems rather unfair. The sceptics you refer to never seem to question each other’s theories; they just let all such theories pass, despite them being mutually exclusive. People such as myself, who believe that the deception is in the details, the omissions, and especially in the mass-media representation, aren’t even permitted into your club, in which I think you have all become far to cosy, all railing against the outside world but discussing nothing between each other.

        Essentially, debate is not happening.

      • Trowbridge H. Ford

        I suggest you read my double article in Issue Eight of Eye Spy magazine (pp. 26-33), especially its footnotes, concentrating on the 15 unnamed agents in the last three planes, under the direction of Barbara Olson while on the way to LA, wife of the Bush administration’s Solicitor General Ted Olson, who the US government still refuses to identify as a national security secret of the highest classification.

        No sooner had it appeared than editor Mark Ian Birdsall volunteered to me that it had received unprecendented support from America’s counter terrorists, only to disappear without a trace shortly thereafter.

        • Clark

          Twrobridge, that is fascinating. I have a vague recollection that I’ve read that assertion before, but it’s so long ago and there’s been so much raw sewage go under the bridge since then.

          Is your article available on-line?

  • Node

    A video has surfaced of Donald Trump being interviewed on 9/11. He was in New York and witnessed one of the towers being hit. He doesn’t believe that the planes alone could have brought down the buildings.

    Alan Marcus: Donald you’re probably the best-known builder particularly of great buildings in the city. There’s a great deal of question about whether or not the damage and and the ultimate destruction of the buildings was caused by the airplanes by architectural defect or possibly by bombs or more after shocks you have any thoughts on that?

    Donald Trump: It wasn’t architectural defect. The World Trade Center was always known as a very very strong building. Don’t forget that took a big bomb in the basement (1993). Now, the basement is the most vulnerable place because that’s your foundation and it withstood that and I got to see that area about three or four days after took place because one of my structural engineers actually took me for a tour because he did the building and I said “I can’t believe it”. The the building was standing solid and half of the columns were blown out. This was an unbelievably powerful building. If you don’t know anything about structure it was one of the first buildings that was built from the outside. The steel, the reason the World Trade Center had such narrow windows is that in between all the windows, you had the steel on the outside, the steel on the outside of the building.

    That’s why when I first looked – and you had these big heavy i-beams. When I first looked at it, I couldn’t believe it, because there was a hole in the steel and this is steel that was, you remember the width of the windows of the World Trade Center folks. I think you know if you were ever up there, they were quite narrow and in between was this heavy steel. I said how could a plane, even a plane, even a 767 or 747 or whatever it might have been, how could it possibly go through this steel? I happen to think that they had not only a plane but they had bombs that exploded almost simultaneously, because I just can’t imagine anything being able to go through that wall. Most buildings are built with the steel on the inside around the elevator shaft. This one was built from the outside which is the strongest structure you can have and it was almost just like a can of soup.

    Rolland Smith: You know, Donald we were looking at pictures all morning long of that plane coming into building number two and when you see that approach the far side and all of a sudden within a matter of milliseconds the explosion pops out the other side.

    Donald Trump: Right. I just think that there was a plane with more than just fuel. I think obviously they were very big planes. They were going very rapidly, because I was also watching where the plane seemed to be not only going fast it seems to be coming down into the building. So is getting the speed from going down hill so to speak. It just seemed to me that to do that kind of destruction is even more than a big plane because you’re talking about talking about steel, the heaviest caliber steel that was used on the building. These buildings were rock-solid and you know it’s just an amazing amazing thing. This country is different today and it’s going to be different than it ever was for many years to come.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcKlPhFIE7w

    • Clark

      Node, I suddenly feel very, very afraid. It’s inconceivable that such a liar could be elected President of the United States. If a m

      • Clark

        I tapped a wrong key and now can’t remember what I was going to write. Sorry.

        Node, will you please discuss the physical evidence with me?

    • Clark

      Node, what do you mean by “surfaced”? I find it remarkable that I’ve never seen that video, not in all the years I’ve taken an interest in 9/11, and not even with Trump’s presidential campaign. How did it come to your attention?

      Also remarkable is how many themes of the “9/11 Truth movement” seem to have been (possibly) “seeded” in that video. I note that Trump is referred to as “the man behind lots of real estate in Manhattan”, and says “Larry Silverstein is a very good friend of mine”, and owned the next tallest building in the vicinity.

      My impression on watching that video was that Trump had foreknowledge.

      I was already very scared of what Hillary Clinton’s election might mean for the world. Trump always seemed worse for the US, but now I’m scared what he’d mean globally, too.

      • Node

        Clark

        No, I’m not going to discuss the physical evidence with you. You turn all discussions into arguments. I don’t think you do it deliberately – I think you have a self-fulfilling persecution complex. I don’t bear ill will towards you, I don’t think you are part of an establishment conspiracy, I DO think your opinions are exaggerated by your need to provoke a reaction against yourself. I could imagine a situation where I pretend to agree with you, forcing you to adapt your claims so as to keep clear water between us, whereupon I agree with your new position, and so forth until I have manoeuvred you into a complete about turn.

        As to “what do you mean by “surfaced”?”, I agree that it’s strange it isn’t better known but it seems genuine. Maybe it’s been suppressed but now someone sees an advantage to airing it. I came across a reference to the video and searched it on Youtube. As you and Kempe have pointed out, Trump’s opinions are not necessarily to be taken at face value. It’s possible it’s fake, I suppose. I posted it because whatever its provenance, it’s interesting.

        • Clark

          Node, do please attempt the sort of manipulation upon me that you describe above, as a test of the soundness or otherwise of my honesty and my reasoning abilities.

          I’ve put considerable effort into this site over many years, some of it known, much of it not. For a long time, I was the spam filter; this site’s comments section would have drowned without my efforts. This is in addition to my political efforts beyond this site. I find it extremely offensive to be accused repeatedly of helping to conceal a conspiracy to mass-murder, which would be directly opposed to principles that are very dear to me. What you describe as a “self-fulfilling persecution complex” is my reaction to actual persecution. You seem unable to recognise that, although I could link dozens of examples on this thread alone. You do not do this yourself, but you have stood by while others have inflicted such emotional abuse, and then insisted that I should apologise to my abusers.

          It seems to be human nature to conspire. The behaviour I describe above is an example, right here among us who comment on this thread.

          • Clark

            After several hours I realised that this was shrouded ad hominen from Node.

            Because Node wishes not to consider physical evidence that contradicts his preferred propaganda, he accuses me of a persecution complex – which, of course, is persecution in itself.

            Thanks, Node. Nothing like solidarity, is there?

      • Clark

        Ben, as you know, I’ve done that job and I’m still associated with Craig, so I don’t feel very comfortable about it at all. Should I include myself in the ones you’re saying should commit suicide?

        • glenn

          Clark, you’re talking to a disgusting Yank thug who’s probably suffering from cannabis psychosis. Don’t trouble yourself. They’re not all like that either, this is just a man-child who likes to talk tough, and gives them all a bad name – an all-too typical example of the ugly American.

        • Ben

          Clark; I don’t wish to feed your depression so I’ll take a pass on your aggravating offer.

          Can you transcend your factual obsession and take a break for intuition? That is if, you know what intuition is comprised of.

  • John Goss

    One thing seems certain to my mind. There can be no agreement about 9/11. Those who religiously support the official line are as immovable in their views as a structural steel construction built to withstand hurricanes, earthquakes, plane crashes, wind, rain, storms and blacksmiths’ anvils. The rest of us, though we get accused of supporting all the theories we link to, are asking questions because we believe there is something wrong with the official version. Here are some more questions.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NRMgnXL9JQ

    • Clark

      John Goss, please make your accusations plainly rather than as insinuations. Am I one of those you accuse of religiously supporting the US establishment?

      • glenn

        In fairness, John was talking about the “official line”, not the US establishment.

        In equal fairness, if one doesn’t accept wholesale the Official Story, one is immediately accused of believing in holograms, lizard-people and all other nonsense – most of which has been put out there precisely to discredit the sceptics imho.

      • John Goss

        Clark, you should not take everything so personally. There are others on here who are much more dogmatic concerning the official line than you, some who have never said a word against it.

        • Clark

          Therefore you must mean Kempe.

          No one is under any obligation to criticise “the official line”, no more than you, John, are under any obligation to criticise, for instance, any immoral policy that may issue from the Kremlin.

          Anyone who challenges or corrects any falsehood, fabrication or disinformation is performing a service to the truth, and therefore also to justice and peace. I therefore find most of Kempe’s contributions to this thread to be positive, ie. good.

          John, I suspect that you feel that US and corporate propaganda can be fought using counter-propaganda. It is a tempting belief since the search for truth is hard work requiring much researching and checking, whereas counter-propaganda is available pre-packaged in vast quantities and can be linked to in seconds.

          Resist the temptation, because justice can be based reliably only upon truth, and peace requires justice.

    • Clark

      John Goss, October 5, 09:16: the video you link to seems to be doctored. The original is available on archive.org and the incoming aircraft is clearly visible:

      https://archive.org/details/nbc200109110831-0912

      In any case, there are so many amateur videos and eye-witness reports of the second aircraft strike that it doesn’t really make any difference if NBC did cheat on their late-night broadcast.

      I still have some questions about this; I’d particularly like to know the camera position that the steady high shot was taken from, but it’s just taking up too much time. It takes seconds to link to such a YouTube vid, but hours to investigate it, which is why you should verify evidence for yourself before posting. The following links may be helpful for yourself or others:

      NBC LIVE:
      (local broadcast): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjUUSbWk60M
      (national broadcast): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xomUzh3QOg
      (CNBC): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G124C6RGKMQ
      (Raw chopper footage): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAlA-H4QJRo

  • deepgreenpuddock

    To be fair to John Goss, his comment is not really an insinuation of anything related to Clark’s support for the official explanation (or rejection of a conspiracy).
    I also reject the idea of some type of premeditated conspiracy by sinister actors within some weird invisible/secret manipulative parallel governing supra-authority. That s certainly nonsense.
    However there is certainly scope for some minor, or a series of smaller /less grand, covert action,gross incompetence, and some kind of cover-up.
    The Saudi connection is certainly troubling. How can it be that there has been no full disclosure over the involvement of so many Saudi nationals in the event – no distancing of the involvement of the US with Saudi Arabia and its , by so many standards, very questionable, regime, and virtually no adverse comment from the US government about this involvement.
    Saudi Arabia is a highly significant M.E actor and economic partner of the ‘West’ The logic of the policy decisions after the event-regardless of the causes of the disaster on 9/11, are not readily apparent, nor is there any substantial explanation of the development of policies and relations in relation to S.A. since the event.

    The problem is that the event is so huge, both in the immediate effect of the death of nearly three thousand innocents, a shocking,terrible tragedy, and the way that it was manipulated and exploited to proceed to a policy that has, even by the most sober assessments, been a major failure. It has probably even been instrumental in the propagation of the Trump phenomenon, and in damage to the economic and destabilisation of political prospects of the world. The ripples of 9/11 are immense and have not really subsided yet. (I refer to the invasions and foreign policy positions of the Bush administration and the connection to the Blair government).
    Of course there is certainly scope for blundering incompetence, and that almost certainly lies alongside any more sinister manipulations. There is the further feeling or sense that no one, no group has been made accountable for a huge crime, by a reliable and open process such as a trial, for a shocking loss of life, which was undoubtedly a crime.
    But-the official explanation is certainly not adequate, and is fairly obviously omitting much, and fairly obviously, (or at least it is strongly suspected), avoiding a direct confrontation with centres of power which would be compromised or imperilled by a full disclosure.

    It is obviously a very difficult matter. i know that I have no idea how this event occurred but I would certainly like to have an insight -certainly more convincing than the ‘official’ one, or the ones propagated by others no better informed than myself.

    • John Goss

      Yes, it troubles many people. The lawsuits are going to be interesting.

      Obama is not really worried about other countries like Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria and other countries suing the USA for acts of terrorism. Such suits would never succeed. Even if they did they would not be honoured.

      The worry is about the extra investigation that may uncover aspects that the US government does not want us to know. That’s what I believe. Congress obviously thinks that Saudi Arabia is behind 9/11 even though they went to war in Afghanistan and Iraq over it. The prophecy of Nat Rockefeller to Aaron Russo about there going to be an ‘event’ has a big impact on my suspicion of who was really behind the attack on the world trade centre twin towers and my suspicion of what form this may have taken when it happened.

      Perhaps one day we will know.

  • Clark

    I think it’s time we started constructing a truth table.

    If anyone doesn’t know what a truth table is, please look it up.

  • Clark

    I request a poll.

    How many would like me never to comment again.

    How many think I make some positive contribution.

  • Node

    Is it plausible that 3 steel framed buildings fell that day due to office fires when not a single one had previously fallen for that reason? If normal office fires were the cause of this triple catastrophe, surely there will have been wholesale changes in building regulations?

    The One World Trade Center replaced the World Trade Center. Here are the extra safety measures introduced as a result of 9/11.

    # Elevators housed in protected central building core
    # Protected tenant collection point on each floor
    # Dedicated staircase for firefighters
    # Extra-wide pressurized staircases
    # Concrete-protected sprinklers, emergency risers, and communication systems

    They tweaked the sprinklers! That’s it! The rest are rescue and evacuation measures. No change in construction methods to stop truss joint failure, no improved steel quality to raise ‘softening’ temperature, no specification for less flammable fixtures & fittings.

    If it is plausible that the buildings fell due to office fires, it is implausible that so little effort has been made to stop it happening again.

      • Clark

        (cough) Node seems to have omitted, or at least played down, some three-foot thick reinforced concrete walls, and that the whole building is of a different design.

        Now why would he do that? Surely he wouldn’t want us to doubt his honesty?

      • Clark

        John Goss links to an article by Dimitri Khalezov claiming that the Twin Towers were caused to collapse by underground nuclear weapons:

        “…The primary purpose of the nuclear weapon used on 911 was to produce a massive Gama ray / neutron flux that would vaporize about 150 to 300 feet of 6 inch thick steal I beams that constituted the central core of the WTC buildings. This created a free fall event as seen on TV that day”

        However, Genelle Guzman-McMillan was descending the North Tower; she’d reached the 13th floor when the building collapsed. She was rescued from the rubble 27 hours later and was still alive in 2011. The stairways were in the building’s core. John, I hope you can see the contradiction here.

        John, talking of unanswered questions, you haven’t answered mine, about the buckling:

        https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-96/#comment-627491

        I know you don’t want me asking awkward questions, just swallow your explanation hook, line and sinker.

        • Clark

          John Goss, nice people you trust. Dimitri Khalezov helped arms dealer “Merchant of Death” and “Lord of War” Viktor Bout:

          https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Document:Dimitri_Khalezov_Interview

          “Both Victor Bout and I are Russian. We are both former Soviet military officers. Moreover, we actually come from the same village”

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

          “Bout’s nickname, “Sanctions Buster”, is due to his being implicated of facilitating the violation of UN arms embargoes in Angola, Liberia, Sierra Leone, and the Democratic Republic of Congo during the 1990s…

          A 2000 United Nations report stated, “… Bulgarian arms manufacturing companies had exported large quantities of different types of weapons between 1996 and 1998 on the basis of (forged) end-user certificates from Togo“, and that “… with only one exception, the company Air Cess, owned by Victor Bout, was the main transporter of these weapons from Burgas airport in Bulgaria”

          Bout was suspected of supplying Charles Taylor with arms for use in the Sierra Leone Civil War. Eyewitnesses describe personal meetings between the two”

          I’m sure Craig would be delighted to know that you trust such people rather than his deluded self:

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COjqnowC1JA

          What with you trusting an assistant to an arms dealer, and Node supporting multi-millionaire right-wing property developers… I don’t know; what does it take to make the likes of you and Node reconsider whose word you take?

          • John Goss

            It says: “Step six says that sagging floors pulled exterior columns inward. To support this, NIST evaluated nine different scenarios within its computer model, with just one of those producing any inward bowing. To do this, NIST had to take a computer mock-up of a 9-story high by 9-column wide section of steel wall and perform manipulations that had no relevance to the events at the World Trade Center. NIST removed the virtual steel from its web of support by “disconnection,” stripped off all the fireproofing, exposed it to twice the known fire time (i.e. 90 minutes), and then applied an unspecified, utterly miraculous inward pull.[9] It is difficult to understand how an inward pull force could be applied to columns that have been disconnected from the floors. It is the floors that are supposed to have applied the inward force on the columns.”

            That is why I never responded to your repeated probings for an answer. Apologies.

      • Paul Barbara

        All I get is ‘page unresponsive’ when I try to access that link, but I have seen the molten crater before, and that was what led me to seriously suspect mini-nukes (as well as other things, like nanothermite and other explosives) may well have been used in the demolitions.

      • Kempe

        The photos at the end show the results of glacial and water action from thousands of years ago, you can see similar in numerous places across the world.

        No one’s explained how a nuclear bomb in the basement could cause a building to collapse from the top down as the WTC clearly did. Besides a 150 kiloton device would be ten times the size of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima; it wouldn’t cause the tower to collapse; it would send it into orbit! That’s also equivalent to about 7 on the Richter scale so not only would the destruction across Manhattan have been widespread but it would’ve shown up distinctly on the seismic record. It didn’t.

    • Kempe

      How do you propose that steel be improved to raise it’s softening temperature? Especially by not adversely affecting it’s other properties.

      Fire proofing standards have already been improved substantially since the old WTC was built; although of course if what the Truthers claim is true it’s completely un-necessary anyway. One World Trade Center is a substantially different building from those that preceded it. It uses high strength concrete unavailable in the mid-seventies, has a central concrete core three feet thick and floors supported by “I” beams rigidly fixed to the columns instead of lightweight trusses.

      https://media.wnyc.org/media/photologue/photos/Inside%20WTC-14.jpg

      One of the problems on 9/11 was that the first plane severed the fire mains that supplied the sprinklers and hydrants so there was no pressure anywhere in the complex.

      • Node

        How do you propose that steel be improved to raise it’s softening temperature? Especially by not adversely affecting it’s other properties.

        Yawn …. I suppose I’d better correct Kempe’s misrepresentation of what I said before it gets taken down and used against me. I didn’t propose that steel be improved. I asked why those who profess to believe that office fires caused the steel to soften weren’t demanding improved steel …. or any other measure to reduce the risk of thermal expansion leading to joint failure. I put inverted commas round the word ‘softening’ to make my meaning clear to all but those determined to misunderstand.

        Fire proofing standards have already been improved substantially since the old WTC was built; although of course if what the Truthers claim is true it’s completely un-necessary anyway.

        What truthers think is irrelevant in this case. We’re discussing what narrative defenders think. Specifically, why those who profess to believe that office fires caused the towers to fall are not outraged by the lack of significant new fire prevention legislation in this type of building. Do you know of any?

        One World Trade Center is a substantially different building from those that preceded it. It uses high strength concrete unavailable in the mid-seventies, has a central concrete core three feet thick and floors supported by “I” beams rigidly fixed to the columns instead of lightweight trusses.

        Never mind your vague “standards have been improved” and “substantially different.” Three buildings catastrophically collapsed which shouldn’t have done according to their construction standards. Show me specific examples of where lessons learned have been applied to subsequent constructions.

        • Kempe

          If there was any way to manufacture a really heat proof steel somebody would be doing it… and making a fortune out of it.

          Even before 9/11 the required thickness for the type of fireproofing applied to the WTC had been increased from 0.5″ to 2.0″.

          The best way of preventing another 9/11 lies with the intelligence community and ultimately the politicians not with improved building codes.

          • Clark

            Node; fires – and extensive damage. Building 7 stood plenty long enough to be evacuated; it burned for seven hours before it collapsed.

            The Twin Towers couldn’t have been evacuated in time if a floor-wide fire had occurred – for instance, incendiaries on a lower floor. The NIST NCSTAR 1 report makes that very clear, though in very restrained language, and those deficiencies have been addressed.

            For goodness sake read stuff before you criticise it. Is that really asking too much?

          • Node

            I can’t find any significant changes in building regulations resulting from lessons learned on 9/11. Can you?

          • Clark

            …but you could look to see if enforcement of building regulations was investigated and/or strengthened after 9/11.

          • Node

            Stop evading the question. Can you cite significant changes in building regulations as a result of 9/11? If not, why not?

          • Clark

            (snort)

            Kempe, that’s a bit pricey for me; I’m not a fire safety professional. Would you copy and paste please.

            Node, I think you’ve probably made a fool of yourself, and that we may have just discovered something about Kempe.

          • Kempe

            I’ve really no idea what happened with that link. The paywall wasn’t there when I first found it, I suspect they might allow two or three free looks then start charging.

            In short the article was written by a fire safety expert who was responsible for inspecting the WTC from the mid-90s, his last inspection was carried out in June 2001. According to his reports the fireproofing was in overall poor condition. To begin with the steelwork was not adequately prepared and the fireproofing was sprayed directly onto rust. As the rust has flaked off over the years it’s taken the fireproofing with it. Later building work, repairs and alterations, have also damaged the fireproofing. The report included a number of photographs he’d taken showing exposed areas of steelwork. Most worryingly he reckons there are many other buildings across the US in a smilar condition.

          • Clark

            Kempe, I assumed you had an account and had forgotten that you’d need to log in unless your browser already had the appropriate cookie. Thanks for the summary.

          • Clark

            It still demonstrated that Node didn’t even bother following Kempe’s link.

            Node, if you only look at articles that argue in your preferred direction, you’ll always see what you’re hoping to see. Confirmation bias. You need to deliberately look for other viewpoints to get a balanced view.

          • Node

            You’re still evading my question. However if you were able to cite significant changes in building regulations as a result of 9/11, you would have done so by now so I conclude that you agree with me that there are none.

            We have been building steel-framed buildings for more than a century. Many have suffered fires, some of them much fiercer and lasting for days. None have ever fallen due to fire …. until 9/11 when three collapsed on the same day.

            You quote a fire safety expert who says that the WTC buildings’ fireproofing was below standard and that “there are many other buildings across the US in a similar condition.” OK, for the sake of argument, let’s assume that fire WAS the cause.

            OK, so something has gone SERIOUSLY wrong. None fall for a hundred years then relatively mild fires cause three out of three buildings to collapse on the same day …. and here’s this expert saying there are many similar buildings. FUCK’S SAKE …. we need to take drastic action to prevent this happening again. Call in the experts … congressional committee … close those other buildings, upgrade their fireproofing …. strict new laws …. etc … …..yes? …. .

            No! Fuck that. We’ll just leave it up to the construction industry and the property speculators to put their house in order … yes, the same ones who allowed the WTC to become catastrophically dangerous. And look! It worked! Not one other steel-framed building has fallen due to fire since.

            That seems to be what you’re claiming, Kempe. If not, what’s your explanation for 9/11 having so little impact on safety legislation?

          • Clark

            “No! Fuck that. We’ll just leave it up to the construction industry and the property speculators to put their house in order … yes, the same ones who allowed the WTC to become catastrophically dangerous”

            Yep! That’s the great US capitalist empire! What did you expect?

            More seriously, yes, the US economy would collapse if the news mass-media informed the people that the buildings so many of them work in are not as safe as is generally pretended. Why do you expect any better of the corporate media?

            Stop ignoring the damage. Fire AND EXTENSIVE DAMAGE.

            Some of the concerns have been addressed. The new WTC 1 has structural cross-beams that the original WTC 1 and 2 lacked. The fire resistance has been improved, and it has three foot thick walls to protect the core.

            Stop making out that Kempe has an axe to grind; it just makes you look daft. He just corrects bunk, of which there is plenty. It’s YOU that has a bloody great demolition-conspiracy axe that you grind and grind and grind.

            YOU go looking for the legislative changes. Some of the recommendations are in NCSTAR 1, but I haven’t read that far yet, because you lot keep grinding your axe. You haven’t read any of it. Do some of the damn work for a change.

          • Node

            Clark.

            The reason that my question was addressed to Kempe and not you is that he debates without including venomous personal comment.

    • Clark

      So let’s see. In 2016, Donald Trump is running one of the most deceptive, right-wing presidential campaigns the US has ever seen. Back in 2001, Donald Trump and Larry Silverstein were both multi-millionaire property developers in New York, and also, according to Trump, very good friends. But two Port Authority buildings in Silverstein’s portfolio were hit by aircraft and collapsed after just 56 and 102 minutes, despite the time for full evacuation being in excess of 180 minutes.

      Later that day Trump stated on national TV that the buildings were known to be very, very strong, and couldn’t have been brought down by mere aircraft impacts. Built like “soup cans”, he said.

      Various professional publications including Fire Engineering raised serious concerns about the rapid collapses and the exemption of the buildings from otherwise state-wide building regulations, and demanded that the destruction of the wreckage be halted so that a full investigation could be held. They were ignored. Later, NIST, a group of engineers in the public sector, though denied samples of the wreckage, their teeth drawn by a brand new law, gagged by non-disclosure agreements imposed by the private sector, nevertheless managed to document various weaknesses in the buildings and called for amendments in building regulations.

      But you’re with Trump on this on this one, right Node? You agree with the right-wing multi-millionaires, and the safety and engineering professionals are conspiring to cover up mass murder. OK, fine.

  • Paul Barbara

    @ Clark October 5, 2016 at 07:46 What exactly are “patsies”?
    ‘OK, I know it’s New York, but I wasn’t born in the 1920s, and I need to be able to discuss matters unambiguously. All the 9/11 slang – false flag, inside job, controlled demolition, and probably others I haven’t recognised – it’s like everyone is expected to understand them without them ever having been defined.’

    You may not know what ‘Patsies’, ‘False Flags’ etc are, but SURELY you have heard of ‘Search Engines’ or even ‘Dictionaries’?

      • Clark

        Brian, for a while now I’ve been finding Building 7’s collapse, and the circumstances around it, “spooky”. The demolition theorists force me to keep looking deeper, and the deeper I look the more I tend to think that Building 7 also collapsed due to damage and fire; my balance of probabilities is currently 80% fire and damage versus 20% demolition. But, but but…

        Well, you know me; I always start with the science.

        NIST had lots of trouble investigating Building 7. They didn’t start investigating it for a long time, apparently because they were concentrating upon the Twin Towers – which was the right thing to do, since the collapses of the Twin Towers caused by far the most deaths and injuries of all the events on 9/11, whereas Building 7 had been evacuated hours before collapse and didn’t hurt anyone.

        When they did investigate it, they had to abandon their initial theories. Their replacement theories also proved very demanding, and the investigation needed to be extended. A member of NIST said publicly that they were having trouble. Then when they presented their preliminary public announcement, they were severely embarrassed by demolition theorist David Chandler, whose analysis showed over two seconds of free-fall that NIST hadn’t mentioned.

        Chandler had used video of the collapse to calculate the rate of descent:

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpAp8eCEqNA

        It was these measurements that demonstrated free-fall, but the same data presents a problem for demolition theorists. In the video above, look at the graph shown just after 1 minute 50 seconds. Seconds are marked horizontally across the bottom. The long slope from just before 1 second to just after 3 seconds is the downward acceleration. It lasts about 2.25 seconds and it’s very close to g, and Chandler was absolutely right to point it out.

        But if we’re doing science, we have to use all the data, or we’re “cherry picking”, which could amount to cheating. Look at the left of the graph. The green line represents the rate of descent of the roof-line. Zero (ie. stationary) is actually beyond the the top of the graph. The rate of descent increases downwards, because gravity works downwards. From about 0.3 seconds to about 0.8 seconds, the green line shows descent but not acceleration. What it shows is half a second of steady descent.

        This is what Node refuses to discuss with me. There is no way I can think of that explosives could cause this. Explosives remove support instantly, so acceleration should start straight away. Buckling of upright columns could cause a short period of steady descent without acceleration, but that would still leave the free-fall to explain. This left my balance of probabilities at about 50/50.

        But then I browsed into some human evidence:

        https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/eyewitnessaccountsofthewithdrawalfromwtc

        There’s a lot of other first-hand eyewitness reports on that site, which was made by a New York tour guide called Mark Roberts. Firefighters were certainly expecting that Building 7 might collapse. But there’s also a fascinating snippet on that site. Famously, Larry Silverstein later said:

        “I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, ‘We’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.’ And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse.”

        Well I don’t know how Silverstein remembers that, because FDNY Chief of Operations Daniel Nigro has said:

        “I am well aware of Mr. Silverstein’s statement, but to the best of my recollection, I did not speak to him on that day and I do not recall anyone telling me that they did either. That doesn’t mean he could not have spoken to someone from FDNY, it just means that I am not aware of it.”

        https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/larrysilverstein%27s%22pullit%22quote

        Hmmm. Silverstein and Trump. Silverstein had no authority to tell the Fire Department what to do, so did Silverstein make that up? Why might a property developer want to give the impression that he had his building pulled down, rather than it just collapsing? Spooky.

        • Clark

          Brian, I’ll agree that Building 7’s collapse looks a lot like a controlled demolition, but appearances are sometimes deceptive.

          In its 2.25 seconds of free-fall the outside* of Building 7 fell about eight storeys of its height – which is just about the same size as the cavity that was beneath its core**. That may or may not explain the free-fall.

          * We know that something significant inside the building had already fallen, because we can watch one end of the bit on top (called the mechanical penthouse) sort of fall in through the roof several seconds before the final collapse began.

          ** Building 7 was built above a pre-existing transformer substation on foundations that were intended for a building of less than half the size; the core was suspended on a cantilever system above this. There was also a large loading bay in the basement levels, large enough for full size US articulated trucks. Building 7 was sort of hollow at its base. You can see on videos that Building 7 didn’t have a proper ground floor. There was just a narrow lobby with long escalators going up signposted “To the main level”.

          There’s nothing simple about Building 7 or its collapse which is why I’ll only state my balance of probabilities.

          • Clark

            Silverstein’s statement just does not ring true. It was the worst disaster ever to hit New York. Hundreds of firefighters, including the Chief of Department who Silverstein seems to be saying telephoned him, had been caught in the collapses of the Twin Towers; their colleagues were trying to search the rubble, looking for them. Fires raged in many buildings and broken water mains meant there was insufficient water to fight them.

            Yet Silverstein says he was ‘phoned by a dead man who would have had not the time nor the inclination to do so had he been alive.

            Stinks.

          • Clark

            https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=corruption+new+york+construction

            (About 17,000,000 results – anyone care to look through them?)

            “Trump swam in mob-infested waters in early years as an NYC developer”:

            https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/trump-swam-in-mob-infested-waters-in-early-years-as-an-nyc-developer/2015/10/16/3c75b918-60a3-11e5-b38e-06883aacba64_story.html

            “Throughout his early career, Trump routinely gave large campaign contributions to politicians who held sway over his projects, and he worked with mob-controlled companies and unions to build them“.

            That’s Larry Silverstein’s “very good friend” Donald Trump, who said the buildings were “very strong”. My balance of probabilities has just shifted towards fire and damage.

          • Clark

            The above may also cast light upon why Trump said he’d publish the redacted pages of the 9/11 Commission Report, directing the 9/11 spotlight towards Saudi Arabia just as Trump is about to run for President, methinks.

        • lysias

          You don’t understand how much clout a wealthy businessman would have had to tell the New York City government what to do, especially a city government headed by someone as politically ambitious as Rudy Giuliani.

          • lysias

            That was in response to Clark’s skepticism about the story that Silverstein told the New York Fire Department to “pull” WTC7.

          • Clark

            Lysias, ah, so you regard Silverstein’s word as more reliable than FDNY Chief of Operations Daniel Nigro’s then, yes? You’d rather believe a billionaire property developer, whereas this man, whose hundreds of colleagues died in the line of duty on 9/11, you regard as a liar. OK, fine, but you’ve just lost a lot of respect with me.

            It seems Habbabkuk had you pegged all along; how sad.

          • Clark

            Lysias! How thick of me. I didn’t immediately understand what you wrote:

            “…Silverstein told the New York Fire Department to “pull” WTC7”

            So you’re actually alleging that scores of firefighters broke off from the search for their fallen, buried comrades, to demolish Building 7!

            I thought I was being nasty, but I wasn’t being anywhere nasty enough. You are beyond shame.

          • Paul Barbara

            lysias,
            If Truthers said the earth was round, I’m sure Clarke would come up with some ‘scientific’ evidence that this just could not be.

          • Clark

            Lysias, I’ve never heard of firefighters performing demolitions, but in any case, if FDNY did demolish Building 7, there would be no reason to keep it secret.

            BUT – If Building 7 was demolished, FDNY would be one of the worst choices for doing so secretly. So many firefighters were killed that day. The firefighters became some of the most honoured heroes of 9/11, especially in New York itself, absolutely not people to be sidelined, ignored or discredited.

            Many were also very angry after 9/11. Their colleagues had been sent into the Twin Towers and died in the collapses, which happened far sooner than would be expected of well made buildings. The evacuation commands hadn’t reached them because the Twin Tower emergency address system failed due to inadequacy, as did the emergency services’ communication radios. Firefighters routinely share great danger and become very close. Some repeatedly defied orders to evacuate the collapse zone around Building 7 as they continued to search for their comrades caught in the collapses of the Twin Towers.

            New York firefighters raised many angry protests after 9/11, with complete justification. Their city’s authorities had severely failed them. Yet none have complained of being ordered to abandon their rescue efforts and waste their time by carrying explosives into a burning building to destroy it. Offering money and making threats only buys so much, Lysias, and indeed is likely to inflame righteous anger still further.

            Lysias, sorry, but you can’t be thinking straight on this.

  • mog

    The convoluted arguments continue.
    Clark writes, Brian, I’ll agree that Building 7’s collapse looks a lot like a controlled demolition, but appearances are sometimes deceptive.

    This is a fair point to make, but I wonder is there a counter-example of something that looks like a controlled demolition but which we know is not? The distinctive characteristics of controlled demolition that get repeatedly listed and ticked off when we view building 7’s demise, make sense to me. I would understand the position of those who are adamant (even 80% sure) that WTC7 came down through fire and damge, if they could show a structure (or anything) behaving in a comparable way that was not a controlled demolition.

    The same goes for the towers.
    Is there an example of a tall thin structure, something approximating the same relative dimensions as the twin towers (208 x 208 x 1362) which can be seen to collapse ‘through itself’, i.e. not be seen to topple with a top section falling to the side? I cannot recall ever seeing this kind of symmetrical motion occurring anywhere except where such motion is carefully controlled. Spire-like structures, when broken, as far as I am aware, always fall over, not through. If I am wrong then surely there must be examples somewhere showing this effect in action.

    I read a much repeated statement: that the official version of the WTC buildings’ destruction describes the only three high rise failures (for reasons other that controlled demolition) in history. It could be a counter argument that the events of 911 were pretty unique. Kempe, Clark obviously are very doggedly determined in their support for the idea that these buildings came down through fire and damage alone, I might comprehend that determination if they could show me something and to tell me “Look, this is what we are talking about. Structures/ objects/ materials can and do behave this way, as seen here”.

    • Clark

      Mog, such instances of damage are rare. The main reason they are rare is that the US does most of the attacking that goes on, but the US doesn’t attack the major financial capitols of the world where the skyscrapers are. They hit impoverished countries, and when they do, they hit infrastructure, and even military targets occasionally. Such targets aren’t very very tall and relatively thin, for the obvious reason that such structures are too vulnerable, to accidental as well as deliberate damage. You don’t build power stations or a fortresses into skyscraper shapes. If that were the case, we might have some of the comparisons you’re looking for.

      The coincidence isn’t as extreme as it first seems, since the Twin Towers were almost identical and suffered rather similar damage. Had one of them been hit near the base I would have expected it to topple, but that wasn’t possible because the Twin Towers were surrounded by buildings of around half their own height or more, protecting the lower half or more from aircraft strike.

      One of the reasons I’m so determined about this is that I regard demolition theories as a supreme distraction. We are banned from even mentioning 9/11 on the regular threads because the argument always polarises, with demolition theorists crowing about Newton’s laws etc. though they’re completely wrong, others telling them they’re wrong, and then counter-arguments of being part of the conspiracy. It all goes to hell within a handful of comments, it’s a total mess, and it prevents us from even mentioning one of the most formative and significant events relevant to foreign policy.

      Another reason is that I’m passionate about physics and I hate to see people making fools of themselves. Yes, buildings can collapse, especially if they’re really tall and built by New York organised crime.

      Yet another reason is that demolition theorists so often want to write the hijackers out of the story, yet in so many US-induced covert conflicts, these Saudi-inspired religious extremists are essential to the US subterfuge. When the US destabilises Syria, we should be able to comment “you’d have thought the US would have learned their lesson after 9/11”, but if anyone writes that there’s immediately a whole bunch of demolition theorists spamming the thread with bunk “science”.

      • Clark

        In short, demolition theories are totally wrong, utterly divisive, and completely disruptive. I suspect that to some extent they’re a psy-op, to provide distracting cover to US exploitation of religious extremists.

        • Clark

          Oops, I forgot this:

          “The distinctive characteristics of controlled demolition…”

          Yes but there are also the characteristics of buckling, in the uniform speed of descent before acceleration set in. And it was even found by demolition advocate Chandler. NIST overlooked 2.25 seconds of free-fall, and Chandler overlooked 0.5 seconds of slow, non-accelerating descent.

          We shouldn’t pin our arguments on ifs, buts and maybes, because if demolition gets conclusively proven to be bunk, all the arguments resting on it will fall with it.

          • Clark

            Oops, and I forgot this too:

            ” if they could show me something and to tell me “Look, this is what we are talking about. Structures/ objects/ materials can and do behave this way, as seen here”.”

            Vérinage demolition and Ronan point.

      • Clark

        Something we should have learned from all this and be crowing from the rooftops; foremost capitalists like Silverstein and Trump worked hand-in-hand with the New York organised crime mob, resulting in thousands of avoidable deaths including hundreds of the bravest, overlooked, lowest paid and most conscientious; the emergency responders.

        • mog

          Clark,
          You have not even tried to answer my query.
          If you are right about the physics, surely you must be able to show some example (of any scale, of any material) that demonstrates your understanding. A mass falling through the path of most resistance, a construction that falls through itself symmetrically and at rapid acceleration…..?
          I would better understand your voluminous postings and your mental picture of how fire and damage could have caused the effects seen on the WTC videos if there was an example of something else (not necessarily a sky scraper) that behaved in a comparable way.
          Or are you saying that these effects are unique to skyscrapers?Do you think they were unique to the WTC event?

          • Clark

            Mog, the debris didn’t fall “through the path of most resistance”. The degree of resistance varied across the cross-section of the Towers. The path of most resistance would have been down through the core and perimeter columns, which provided the vertical support. But the falling material went past those columns, some outside the perimeter but most between the perimeter and the core, through the much larger areas of the horizontal floor slabs. These provided only several centimetres of resistant material every 3.7 metre or so, the rest being air.

            If you made a 100:1 scale model of the Towers, it would be over 4 metre high. The floor slabs would be just one millimetre thick, with 36 mm of air between each.

            Ronan point and Vérinage demolition demonstrate comparable behaviour.

  • Clark

    FDNY Chief of Operations Daniel Nigro said:

    “I am well aware of Mr. Silverstein’s statement, but to the best of my recollection, I did not speak to him on that day and I do not recall anyone telling me that they did either. That doesn’t mean he could not have spoken to someone from FDNY, it just means that I am not aware of it.”

    Does that sounds like Nigro was being very careful, like maybe he’d been threatened with being sued? It’s like he’s being really clear that what Silverstein said never happened, but carefully not calling Silverstein’s honesty into question.

    I do get this feeling that Silverstein wanted to plant a suggestion of demolition in the public mind, while maintaining plausible deniability. The way he put the stress on “pull it”; sharp, aggressive. Hmmm.

    Was the critical column number whatever-it-was exposed in the sub-level loading dock? Could it have been rammed with a truck, for instance?

  • glenn

    Clark: Christ Almighty, about 2/3rds of the comments in the more recent pages in this thread are from you – all of them are intimidatory, of the “Take Me On If You Dare!” sort of challenge, and if you’re short of correspondents, it’s not bloody surprising mate!

    Talk about demolition? All you want to do is demolish your opponent, let’s be frank here. Come on. Just a bit of honesty. Declarations about holy truth, devotion to physics etc. aside, that’s all this is about now. That’s why I butted out of this discussion some time back – unless I want a personal problem with -you-, which rapidly becomes quite frighteningly intense, I’d better back off.

    Ever wondered about the effect this rat-tat-tat-tat-tat approach of yours has on your correspondents, potential or actual?

    Vérinage – a method of destroying concrete towers which has absolutely zero to do with high-rise steel-framed structures. Why someone would bring that up is beyond me. Then again, why someone would ignore the fact that lower Manhattan was covered with dust from the Twin Towers, and pretend every last ounce of each floor’s collapse accumulated and was brought to bear on the floor beneath it, is also beyond me.

    Strikes me you want to pounce, Clark. You’ve suddenly found a new clarity which is beyond ordinary mortals, and it’s your mission in life to ram it down our stupid collective throats.

    *

    Btw – I typed “strontium” into a search engine and got 7 million hits. Relevance? None. “String” got 18,400,000 hits. “Hair” – 130,000,000.

    • Clark

      But you haven’t backed off, quite the opposite, as you well know (though that matter occurred in private, away from this thread) and now yes I do have a personal problem with you. I’m sure you feel entirely justified, for whatever that’s worth.

      Here is where you’re going, and encouraging others to go:

      https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/alexjonesvilifiesthefdnyandlarrysilverst

      Original video:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXJJbAZbjw4

      You’ve turned to the crowd for support, Glenn, and in so doing you’ve encouraged Node, John Goss etc. in their pursuit of commenters like Kempe, whom they genuinely believe to be Agents of some New World Order. The thing you’re missing is that this anti-science, anti-fact, slogan-jeering rabble-rousing comes from the Right, the elite, the billionaires, and Trump and Silverstein will get on with Putin and the oligarchs like a house on fire.

        • Clark

          Glenn, that’s really low. You know what you did which was the opposite of backing off, and you know that I have more integrity than to reveal it, so you depend upon my integrity to call me a liar. Very, very low.

          • glenn

            I’ve “turned to the crowd for support” – seriously? Even though I’m happy to say most of the positions about holographic planes, death-rays, HAARP etc. etc. is rubbish. No, I don’t think so. DId I say Kempe or anyone else was a “New World Order” agent? Err… no, I did not.

            In fact is there anything there in that little list of accusations against me that could actually prove? (Answer : No.)

            Do I despise Alex Jones for his lunacy, lies, and his dumbing-down effect? Absolutely. You know this full well, yet quote AJ as if it had something to do with me.

            I’ve backed off this subject for months, because you’ll tear into people like they just shagged your misses or something, if they dare to disagree with you. Am I supposed to back off permanently, and watch you strut around insulting people, inviting all-comers to take you on, crowing about it?

            But if I have the temerity to point out a couple of truths, things don’t go very well from that point, do they Clark? No of course not. It’s only _you_ that’s allowed to do that. The rules just don’t apply in both directions.

      • John Goss

        I have absolutely no idea what, or who, Kempe is. All I know is that he supports unwaveringly establishment comment whereas you only support it when the blog supports it. Kempe also supports virtually everything H, RD, A1 and other MSM mouthpieces espouse. Kempe might be a nice person. Who knows? He might not be employed or tasked by anyone with a certain agenda. Who knows?

    • Kempe

      ” Vérinage – a method of destroying concrete towers which has absolutely zero to do with high-rise steel-framed structures. Why someone would bring that up is beyond me. ”

      The point was to demonstrate that progressive collapse can destroy a building without explosives having to be used on every floor or indeed any floors at all. Something Truthers believe to be impossible. It’s very relevant unless you think concret buildings obey different laws of physics to steel framed ones.

      Sorry if it went over your head.

  • Paul Barbara

    ‘Plus ca change….’
    ‘Home Office Prevent unit linked to Iraq ‘black ops’ PR firm’:
    http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/home-office-prevent-unit-linked-black-ops-campaign-iraq-129661183

    And the Yanks have the audacity to claim ‘Right to Protect’ rights to bomb and invade Sovereign countries!
    Also, of course, their callous murderous way of war has not improved over time, but has just been refined and worse than it was in Vietnam; also they are more open about it, like torture.

    • Will Freemen

      Clark Kent I presume. I suggest you keep your bulk delivery and try a new one on each day. Have you ever tried to find the dictionary definition of the word “conspiracy”. It means that 2 or more people plan in secret to damage another or others. So any war or acts of terrorism are in essense conspiracies.

      And you know nothing of Physics. What is your credentials with regards to Physics? If you ever studied it, you don’t deserve your degree. Assymettrical damage can never cause a symmetrical collapse. For a whole floor to collapse simultaneously, all support must be removed simultaneously. That is why in controlled demolitions timers are used to ensure that all the charges explodes simultaneously. But of course, the timers can be set to anything so anything slightly different from the usual pattern of a free-fall collapse can be explained by setting timers to go off at slightly differing intervals. And access to the buildings was possible due to the ownership of the security company that guarded the building.

      Please read http://911debunkers.blogspot.co.za/2012/02/reflecting-on-verinage-demolition.html
      and https://kendoc911.wordpress.com/examples-of-controlled-demolition/ to educate yourself before you make a complete fool of yourself.

      Btw, I just don’t understand why you refer to Ronan Point to prove your case. Most of the building is still standing! See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronan_Point

      • glenn

        Will Freemen: What you’ve just described is why I intuitively cannot accept this manner of collapse. The symmetric nature of it.

        If it happened to slew off at some point, you could see that a partial failing due to catastrophic damage has occurred. Here, it failed throughout, with each floor consistently and precisely hitting the one beneath – symmetry is the point.

        Could it have gone one way for one floor, another on the next, and the whole thing balanced out? Or would one side of a floor collapse hit that part directly beneath, and the progression quickly is arrested – tapering away from the centre.

        The fact that each building’s collapse accelerated down without significant arrest from the structure, nor the inertia of each new and increasingly bulky portion (which was presumably fully tethered and at rest at the moment of impact).

        *

        What appears to anger some around here is agnosticism over the destruction of the WTC. I find it very hard to dismiss the proposal these buildings were detonated, but to fail to do so (and fail to provide proof positive for demolition) gets some people very annoyed.

        • Clark

          Well I’m currently reading Bazant and Zhou 2001. I’ve examined the tipping equation (kinetic energy equals potential energy) in appendix II and the physical relationship seems sound. I’d need to refer to a text book to verify the mathematical rearrangements but if they were wrong the paper would have been retracted, or Bazant and Zhou would never have been published again.

          Either of you read it?

          Glenn you keep moving the goalposts. First you argued impossibility from momentum. I demolished that in two lines so without saying anything you shifted to mechanical strength. You claimed at some point that a differential equation was involved but failed to cite a paper. Now your arguments are about symmetry and slewing off. You’re grasping at straws and you should trust the academic community more.

          The Towers were concentric tube designs. The outer tube will have tended to constrain the descending debris within, preventing slewing. There was barely any time window for asymmetry to become pronounced. The collapse front accelerated fast because dynamic load greatly exceeded the floor slabs capacity to resist, but the collapse front’s upper bound of acceleration was g – any development of asymmetry would have had to fit into that narrow window.

          Bazant and Zhou’s proposal happens to account for the symmetry by proposing that the falling section of building remained mainly intact, though a complete collapse mechanism wasn’t their objective. Some asymmetry is visible on the videos in any case.

      • Clark

        There are other matters against sequenced explosive demolition such as the absence of the sharp crack sounds of demolition charges, the lack of a timed, accelerating sequence of such sounds, and the lack of any material being projected at an inclination above the horizontal.

        Glenn note also that dust production increased to maximum near the end of the collapse, coinciding with the greatest degree of crushing. Less and less was produced the higher up you look, whereas charges presumably would have produced as much near the top as near the bottom.

        Will Freemen, are you claiming to have a physics degree? I’m not, but I did do a year.

  • RobG

    There’s getting on for four thousand posts in this thread, and someone may have already mentioned the ‘Invisible Gorilla Test’…

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inattentional_blindness#Invisible_Gorilla_Test

    These sort of comment threads tend to focus on the technical aspects of 9/11 (my favourite remains Dr Judy Wood) more than the political aspects. For anyone interested here’s an hour long programme from ‘Guns and Butter’ on KPFA radio Berkeley, which looks at the political aspects. It starts with the days following 9/11 and the anthrax attacks, which were used to jolly along the Patriot Act…

    https://kpfa.org/player/?audio=243360

    • RobG

      I should also add (though I take it as given) that the anthrax used in these attacks was proven to have come from US military weapons labs.

      • glenn

        RobG: It’s quite striking that this military-grade anthrax was sent to Tom Daschle, who was the leader of the Senate for the Democrats at the time. Putting his office out of action allowed the PATRIOT act to go through largely unchallenged.

        The only other Senator targeted by anthrax was Patrick Leahy – also a Democrat – who (IIRC) was chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee at the time – another key person who might have given proper oversight for the PATRIOT act, but again, his office was shut down by that attack.

        To consider any of this part of some conspiracy would of course be just C-c-C-Rr-A-YYY-ZEE! You ask any True Believer, they’ll tell you. Then you’ll get mocking references to tin foil hats, and subjected to abuse such as associating you with every outlandish conspiracy theory that ever existed. See a couple of posts up for evidence of this practice.

        • Clark

          You’re smearing me by innuendo, Glenn, and I suspect you’re doing it because you’re a demolition True Believer. It’s YOU that’s being the thought police. Yes, I get sarcastic on this thread, what with the constant smears and all the bullshit that goes unchallenged. That doesn’t make me a “True Believer”, which is an insinuation. I’ve repeatedly stated my belief that conspiracy and foreknowledge seem most likely. You complain about the number of comments I post and yet force me to defend myself yet again.

          I expect what you’ve written about the targets of the anthrax attacks is true; I shall certainly treat it as such. But you’re using it to ridicule me because I reject demolition of the Twin Towers. So you follow the powerful facts you present with encouragement to others to dilute that power by associating them with unsubstantiated or made-up nonsense, and RobG duly displays his wilful ignorance. I do believe you enjoy pumping up the myths. You’re the most shameless hypocrite because that’s just what you accused Scouse Billy of doing: trying to whip up a cult.

          • glenn

            Clark, you can believe whatever you like – that’s the wonderful thing about the freedom we get around here.

            Facts, however, are not yours to mould, twist, fabricate and invert according to your whim. For just one instance, I regard the idea of holographic planes hitting the Twin Towers as utter nonsense, and argued right alongside your good self this point as some length. We were accused of being some sort of tag-team because of our joint insistence that a good number of the popular 9/11 conspiracy theories were risible tosh of the first order.

            Now – however – it pleases you to pretend to others that I believe in crap like that. Did you forget, Clark, or are you telling porkies in order to bolster what you know full well is a BS point you’re trying to make against me here?

            And all the while, you have the goddamned cheek to accuse me of smearing with innuendo. Unbelievable.

          • Clark

            Oh really, Honest Glenn. So what did you intend by this:

            “To consider any of this part of some conspiracy would of course be just C-c-C-Rr-A-YYY-ZEE! You ask any True Believer, they’ll tell you. Then you’ll get mocking references to tin foil hats, and subjected to abuse such as associating you with every outlandish conspiracy theory that ever existed. See a couple of posts up for evidence of this practice”.

            Were you not referring to my comment to Kempe of October 9, 06:37? It certainly looks like you were.

            And I do not “pretend to others that [you] believe in crap like that”, apart from “controlled demolition”. I accuse you of encouraging the propagation of all such crap by smearing and bullying those who challenge it, such as Kempe and particularly myself. You objected to my tone of criticism before, but when I pointed out what you were defending you hypocritically changed sides and ridiculed it. I tainted myself by joining in, and now regret it.

          • glenn

            Clark: With you, right now, the world is divided in Good People and Bad People – very much the binary thinking of Dubbya Bush.

            What it takes to flip a person from one category into the other, is if they dare to deny or flout your assumed authority. We agree on probably 95% of every issue. Yet my failure to cow-tow here, and having the temerity to push back against your barrage against all and sundry on this thread in recent weeks, has you coming out all guns blazing. Now I’m the worst person in the world, all of a sudden. And Kempe is wonderful – honest as the day is long, a clear-minded and most decent rationalist, a pure motivated person you’d trust with your life. Always has been, just like I’ve always been the enemy really. And we’ve _always_ been at war with Oceania.

            Now that’s binary thinking at it’s finest. I really think you should take a step back and reconsider – what do you say about that? Just think about how personally you’re taking this mild criticism, and your rather stunning reaction to same. Scorched Earth policy. I’m doing my best not to take your recent affronts personally.

            Do you think this is a good way for humans to behave? You’d like to consider yourself a fair person, I daresay, and I think you are a decent person. What would the result be if countries carry on this way when they have minor disputes?

            I’m not sure any of this is registering with you at all. It really is a great shame.

          • Clark

            Glenn, WERE you not referring to my comment to Kempe of October 9, 06:37?

            Yes, I return shit for shit – the exception being Lysias – I was truly shocked that he implicated the firefighters and I lashed out. But Node’s been chasing Kempe for no good reason and told me to apologise to an anti-Semite who accused me of working for the perpetrators. I actually chafe Node because I believe he can do much better. But you… The majority of my comments are either references to facts, corrections of false Truther memes, or my own reasoning and speculation, on display so that others can follow my thought process. So you just lied and asserted that “all of them are intimidatory” and that I’m trying to force things down everyone’s throats. What, you expect me to apologise and tip-toe around before I present contrary evidence?

            No, people aren’t good or bad. Behaviours are good or bad, and you can stop lying, exaggerating and polarising, and start facing up to your aggression and insinuation and the motivations behind them at any time you choose.

            Now kindly get off my case. I’m here to discuss 9/11. Your criticisms of my tone and commenting frequency, and your ridiculous assumptions about my personal motivations are entirely boring. It looked to me like you were playing to the gallery so I said so; you could have done the decent thing and made your criticisms in private. You definitely lied about backing off and then you called me a liar. Just can it, if you can.

          • glenn

            “Just can it, if you can.

            Sure, ok. But fair has to be fair.

            “Playing to the gallery” is a clear insinuation of lack of honesty – pretending a position for the sake of popularity. Who started out with charges like this? I’ve never accused you of bad faith, for example, pretending to go along with the official story just to be Kempe’s friend. But that’s just the way you came at me from the outset.

            “Playing to the gallery” – is that my game now? Another charge I have to defend myself from! Do I “play to the gallery” while denouncing anyone who is cruel and unthinking enough to eat meat? Is “playing to the gallery” the position taken, when insulting the vast majority of people who suffer from the delusion of religion? Is “playing to the gallery” someone one does, upon suggesting we have enough people in the country already?

            No – I don’t “play to the gallery” at all, and you’ve known me long enough to know better than to say something like that.

            I’ll make you a deal – you stop making accusations, and I’ll stop defending myself.

            *

            As mentioned to Will Freeman above, the main crime around here appears to be agnosticism to the entire business of the destruction of the Twin Towers.

        • Clark

          Oh really, Honest Glenn. So what did you intend by this:

          “To consider any of this part of some conspiracy would of course be just C-c-C-Rr-A-YYY-ZEE! You ask any True Believer, they’ll tell you. Then you’ll get mocking references to tin foil hats, and subjected to abuse such as associating you with every outlandish conspiracy theory that ever existed. See a couple of posts up for evidence of this practice”.

          Were you not referring to my comment to Kempe of October 9, 06:37? It certainly looks like you were.

          • glenn

            Well, Honest Clark, Measured Clark, Temperate Clark, Stable and… ok, I’ll leave it there. (*)

            Who precisely did you have in mind, when you talked about tin foil? Kindly explain your reasoning, and to whom that might have referred. Be honest now. Thanks in advance.

            PS – You suggested I’d “bullied and smeared” your good friend Kempe. Could you remind me where I’d addressed or even referenced Kempe here, because I appear to have forgotten!


            (* – don’t start calling names and playing games unless you’re prepared to have the same back, there’s a good fellow.)

          • Clark

            The tinfoil was my parting shot. I was going to leave because of you, Glenn; I felt like shit after reading your comment. But it refers to no-plane theories, nuclear demolition, assertions that medical staff murdered Barry Jennings, and all those commenters who have insinuated that anyone who presents an argument against “controlled demolition” must be a secret agent sent to propagandise for war. Now kindly get back on-topic and off my case, which is not what we’re here to discuss.

          • glenn

            Clark: If you want to get off this topic, get off this thread. Nobody’s forcing you to be here, stop playing the martyr.

            And stop ordering other people around – it doesn’t achieve what you want, and doesn’t do you any good. Believe it or not, I am telling you this as a friend.

            *

            Look, I’m not interested in the utter BS like Alex Jones and so on put out. I’ve never heard of Barry Jennings, and if there’s some conspiracy about it, I’m not really that interested in knowing TBH. What’s the point?

            If this is too vexing, leave it – there’s no obligations to continue anything that is not welcome here. But the discussion cannot be dictated – not by you, me, or anyone else – it won’t be settled. Making it personal will not settle it either. Don’t take it personally, see it personally, and particularly don’t _make_ it personal. Please.

          • Clark

            Look if you didn’t want to know, you needn’t have asked me about the tinfoil. If you don’t want me giving orders, you shouldn’t have started out by giving orders to me. You said I wanted to pounce, but you actually did; you hadn’t commented for weeks and when you did you just slated into me. And I’ve little doubt that you think you’re acting as my friend, but ignorance of our own motives pretty much sums up the human predicament.

            I know I’ve been quite prickly on this thread but it’s a defence, which you’ll see if you read the whole thing. I maintain a hair trigger to make them think twice about starting up the “he’s an agent! he’s an agent!” bleat. Kempe doesn’t, and constantly suffers the consequences. Now I’ve got Mr Freeman telling me I’m a fool and my physics is no good; we’ve been here before and it just goes round and round.

      • RobG

        glenn, for me the anthrax attacks are just as much a smoking gun as WTC7.

        Although I’ve yet to see any definitive proof that 9/11 was an inside job, I would say that there’s enough hard evidence for it to stand up in a court of law.

        • Clark

          The anthrax attacks were apparently a very shoddy attempted false flag, and apparently some sort of inside job. If you know of a link to 9/11 please post it.

          WTC7 was evacuated and the area cleared well before its expected collapse. It’s collapse was remarkably dramatic and the pre-emptive reporting downright weird, but if it was a “smoking gun” then its “target” was remarkably obscure. Its roof underwent half a second of steady descent before acceleration set in so explosive demolition is decidedly questionable; see my comments starting here:

          https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-97/#comment-627938

          • glenn

            Arguably, the anthrax attacks were to instil a sense of panic among the legislative branch of the US government, besides the people as a whole. I find it altogether suspicious that these attacks were ready to go, just as the PATRIOT Act was being rolled out.

            Now – arguably again – the PATRIOT Act was just another example of what was described in the Shock Doctrine, by Naomi Klein. They waited until some dreadful event took place, and then pounced while people were reeling. The anthrax attacks were – as you say – undoubtedly a false flag (a real one for a change), and my opinion is that this was waiting in the wings, ready for some seriously bad event, in order to push through whatever the PTB decided was necessary.

            It is not necessarily, therefore, linked to the orchestrators of the 9/11 terror attacks.

          • Clark

            The anthrax attacks were indeed ideal to be kept waiting for an opportunity. Not many people needed and no great coordination and synchronisation required. And I agree that the targets chosen made the Patriot Act the likely motivation, as well as probably attempting (again badly) to implicate Iraq, which had made anthrax.

            The Bush administration or someone close to it are probably implicated because they issued a treatment before the attacks were detected, but of course that’s plausibly deniable because 9/11 had increased the threat assessment.

          • glenn

            …as well as probably attempting (again badly) to implicate Iraq, which had made anthrax

            Yes, exactly. I thought that too, it was ready as an excuse, that Iraq is behind the attack. Everything could have become too convenient all of a sudden, and drawn attention to it, given the scale of the attack, the readiness of the PATRIOT Act all ready to be signed. But the press was _so_ compliant, and anyone not fully on board was clearly helping the enemy. The US was under such savage attack it might totally collapse at any moment.

            It wouldn’t surprise me that a minor Northwoods was being played out against Iraq – after all, PNAC had been underway for years. It would have been rather lax of them to _not_ have something in the pipeline, considering they filthy individuals concerned.

          • Clark

            It seems most unlikely that whoever made such a botch of the anthrax false flag, involving a minimum team of one individual, managed to choreograph 9/11 including the complete demolition of three skyscrapers without a single suspect being identified.

      • Macky

        Wow ! That was quick; they seem to have pulled it less than two hours after tweeting about it !

        Tried looking through my browser’s cache, but no trace; a shame as it was a good article, it analysed beneath clips of Chomsky talking about 9/11, the avoidances & misrepresentations he makes, and it had some interesting comments about Building 7, and also comments about the various evidence of pre-knowledge such as the financial trading records etc.

        This will seriously undermine the OffGuardian site unless they explain what happened to this article.

        • Node

          I remember a video where Chomsky “proved” that the Bush administration wasn’t involved in 9/11 because they blamed Saudi Arabians rather than Iraqis. Chomsky’s reasoning is incomplete. He should have claimed that the Bush admin couldn’t have been involved because they didn’t claim that the hijackers were all from different countries – Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, Syria, Iran …. and counting …..

          IMO, Saudi Arabian scapegoats suited the pretense of invading the first country on their list to look for Bin Laden, then they winged it.

          • Macky

            Yes the focus was on Chomsky’s odd use of logical fallacies iro 9/11; yes that very point you highlight was mentioned, and that article stated that if the Bush Administration had blamed the Iraqis, they would not have been able to attack Afghanistan first, so very strange comment from Chomsky in the first place !

          • Clark

            The article is full of errors, misrepresentations or lies; Off-guardian did themselves a favour by removing it. The most blatant lie is its claims that Building 7 fell in 6.5 seconds, with a link to a video edited to remove the start, when the east mechanical penthouse disappeared through the roof. Full videos show the collapse time to have exceeded 15 seconds.

            I particularly like this line:

            “There are many different theories which, of course, suits the purposes of perpetrators”

            It’s a shame to see Chomsky smeared. More anti-intellectualism from the 9/11 “Truth movement”.

          • Macky

            @Clark, the moment roof starts its decent is the free fall period that matters surely as it’s the overall structural collapse that matters, not the initial singular penthouse falling through the roof; Can you provide a clip of this to view the 15 seconds that you mention ?

            You state that the article is “full of errors, misrepresentations or lies”, can you state some of these out please.

            What do you make of the issue of the missing 2.3 trillion, is it a red herring ? If not, and it was being investigated, do we know where ie at the Pentagon and/or Building 7 ?

          • Clark

            Macky, here’s one clip. First, the east mechanical penthouse falls through the roof, and you can see windows giving out below it. Then the roof sags, and then global collapse ensues.

            This is a low camera angle so we miss some of the later collapse.
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqbUkThGlCo

            This shows various views, some of them synchronised:
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkKgLKyhqHk

            The steady descent is hard to see but Chandler measured it along with the acceleration which followed and peaked at g, or even greater! Exceeding g sounds mad at first, but an outer wall could exceed g if internal structure were pulling on it. See the middle of this comment which links to Chandler’s video and graph:

            https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-97/#comment-627938

            I have many complaints about the article. That it compares the Manhattan Project, which was intended to protect US citizens (however misguidedly) with 9/11 which was to attack them; that the US government would have needed to ensure the aircraft hit their targets whereas terrorists could afford to fail; the suggestion of no-planes theories although planes were witnessed by hundreds; and that it implies the acquiescence of the entire global academic community. It’s also quite unfair of Truthers to confront Chomsky with demolition theories in the first place; he has an important field of his own and it doesn’t include explosives. Essentially, they’re disrupting his political Q&A session, so I can’t condemn him for being offhand.

          • Clark

            Oops, I missed the 2.3 trillion. I find Kempe’s argument convincing – why mention it, if 9/11 was all set up and about to be committed?

            I don’t know the terrain around the Pentagon. The almost full turn could have been a way to make the necessary ground-skimming approach, or maybe the pilot just overshot and had to go around. From all accounts he did well to hit the Pentagon at all so maybe he didn’t care which wedge; I really don’t know. But I suspect he was Saudi air force receiving military training in the US under the 1945 Quincy Agreement:

            http://europe.newsweek.com/alleged-hijackers-may-have-trained-us-bases-152495

          • Macky

            @Clark, thanks for the links; however even allowing for the extra seconds for the Penthouse, the free fall speed of the collapse of the entire building is still very strange.

            One thing that has always struck me as odd, but have never seen expressed anywhere, is that all three buildings that collapse on 9/11, all apparently from the same cause, ie intense fires, should have collapsed in the same manner, yet WT7 seems to have gone down in a complete free fall demolition-style intact chunk, while both towers seems to have gone down whilst literally exploding/disintegrating as they did so; any thoughts on that ?
            I agree that the Manhattan Project was perhaps not the best example to use as an example of CTs that stayed secret for decades, as they are many other better ones. However this & the rest of your objections to the articles are not really “errors, misrepresentations or lies” as you originally stated, but perhaps misunderstandings on your part of the arguments put forward.

            Re the missing 2.3 trillion; see my reply to Kempe. Even if this is a red herring, I think it is accepted that records & paperwork relating to many dozens of huge financial scandals were indeed destroyed with the buildings that day.

          • Clark

            Macky, the 0.5 seconds of steady descent at uniform velocity (ie. NO acceleration) of the roof-line of Building 7 also needs to be considered. Such motion is consistent with buckling of columns, but does not fit easily with explosive demolition.

            Chandler’s measurements revealed both the 2.25 seconds of acceleration at around free-fall, AND the 0.5 seconds of uniform velocity. Chandler accused NIST of dishonesty and fraud for failing to mention the roughly free-fall acceleration. I’m not aware of NIST returning the favour regarding the uniform velocity, but they would be equally justified as Chandler in doing so.

            Chandler’s raw figures also resolve to periods of acceleration that exceeded free-fall, though free-fall lies within the margins of errors of measurement. However, if the acceleration did exceed free-fall, it proves that other forces were acting upon the parts of Building 7 that were visible in the video.

            We should be careful of referring to “the building”. Significant internal structure had collapsed before the visible exterior began its descent, as evidenced by the drop of the east mechanical penthouse through the roof-line. What we saw collapse was not “the building”, but what was left of it, presumably with a load of debris (previously the core structure) still partially attached on the inside.

          • Macky

            @Clark, still not convinced that the collapse of WTC7 is not very suspect, it just looks too similar to free falling demolitions for comfort; anyhow you have no thoughts about the difference I highlighted between WTC7 & the Twin Towers collapses ?

            So finally you really don’t have any serious issues iro “full of errors, misrepresentations or lies” about the off-Guardian article ?

          • Clark

            The failures of each of the Twin Towers were very similar, as might be expected with nearly identical buildings suffering fairly similar damage. After burning briefly the Towers each started to crumple at their most damaged points; the top sections started to fall, initiating collapses downward from the damaged zones, rather similar to vérinage demolition. Much of the failure was on the outside and we can therefore see the sequence by which complete destruction occurred.

            Building 7’s initial failure seems to have occurred internally, as evidenced by the east mechanical penthouse falling through the roof-line. Some seconds later the outside of the building fell very dramatically, accelerating at around g through a distance of about eight storeys. Building 7’s destruction is more difficult to assess because the initial failure was shrouded from view. However, it makes some sense if you examine the design of the building. The core was supported on a bridge-like structure between storeys 5 to 7, and there was a big open loading dock in the sub levels. It looks like the bridge failed allowing the core to fall into virtually a cavity approximately eight storeys deep. The core then dragging the outer walls after it – hence, about eight storeys-worth of rapid acceleration of the outer walls was seen.

            Of course we cannot know because we could not see, but it does make sense, physically. Presumably, blasting out the bridge or its supporting columns by use of explosives would have had the same effect. I can’t imagine a full controlled demolition rig either surviving the widespread fires or being installed by a team while the building burned, but I do wonder about the possibility of a large truck bomb being driven into the loading dock, or that sort of thing. But if so, why? The fire was already doing a good job of destroying records; probably better to let it keep burning than to run the risks, both of getting caught and of smothering the fire, by deliberately introducing and detonating explosives.

            The Twin Towers’ mode of collapse seems consistent with their structure. Their alarmingly short survival times between ignition and collapse seem consistent with the atrocious maintenance of fireproofing that Kempe reported:

            https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-97/#comment-628117

            Building 7 survived much longer, but such sudden and complete collapse is deeply worrying; it suggests the possibility of some concealed weakness that could have been triggered by a much more localised fire in a critical place, or even the collision of a truck with a critical column in the underground loading dock. This raises the very disturbing possibility that Building 7 could have come down completely unexpectedly while fully occupied, due merely to a vehicle collision.

            These various circumstances suggest the possibility of inadequate construction and maintenance standards. Notoriously, the building debris from the entire WTC site was rapidly removed and disposed of; the building and fire safety communities that raised public objections to this. The federal law on building investigations was changed in 2002, before the NIST investigations were begun – not as quick as the introduction of the Patriot Act, but impressive nonetheless. NIST’s authority to report was further hobbled by non-disclosure agreements with the private bodies responsible for the buildings. It all stinks of cover-up, but of sheltering private concerns from public accountability rather than a demolition plot.

            Glenn dismissed the seventeen million hits of my search. He should have at least surveyed the first page:

            https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=corruption+new+york+construction

          • Clark

            Macky, you wrote:

            “…still not convinced that the collapse of WTC7 is not very suspect” (October 13, 22:41).

            I neglected to add that I remain very suspicious myself. The motive would be another matter, of course, especially if the Twin Towers did just collapse.

        • Clark

          What I dislike about the article is that it is crafted to lead the readers rather than inform them. It sets out many bald assertions, for instance:

          “…certain progressive intellectuals […] also practise gatekeeping…”
          “The crimes of 9/11 involved a massive conspiracy, planned many years in advance…”
          “One of the most prominent gatekeepers of 9/11 truth is Noam Chomsky”
          “At core, Chomsky is being dishonest”

          These are the matters that the article seeks to establish, but they are stated as foregone conclusions, even though the article also states “I will agree that in this case we can only speculate about what exactly happened”.

          Another misleading statement I just noticed is: “the manner in which WTC-7 came down was exactly that of a classic controlled demolition”. Now I’ll forgive the author’s ignorance of the 0.5 seconds of uniform velocity before acceleration commenced since it is not widely known, but the absence of the sharp crack sounds of demolition charges is common knowledge – indeed, it is the reason that demolition theorists proposed slower reacting thermite in place of the usual high explosives. Building 7 was also engulfed in fire for many hours – not usual demolition practice at all! Whatever happened to Building 7 it was not a “classic controlled demolition”; it merely resembled one visually.

          We also have this:

          “There are many different theories which, of course, suits the purposes of perpetrators. The video footage of the second plane seems to show it melting into the building which would defy natural laws. Is it almost-live video compositing? Is it a bomb exploding simultaneously creating a hole for the plane to slip in? Who knows? “

          It doesn’t defy natural law and has been thoroughly modelled using finite element analysis – and not just by NIST etc; there are plenty of FEA animations on YouTube and you can run the software on your own system. It also legitimises no-planes theories but I think any reasonable observer accepts that aircraft hit the Twin Towers; it was witnessed by thousands and left huge holes in the buildings. As for the many different theories being convenient to the perpetrators, we see the supporting process on this very thread; challenging any “non-official” theory gets one tagged as some sort of agent, so to avoid being drummed out of the Brownies, most suspend all criticism. The proliferation of theories is our own fault.

          Originally, the point of the 9/11 Truth campaign was to secure a proper investigation. By definition, the outcome is unknown, yet Chomsky is criticised for his “dishonesty”.

          You’ll have gathered that I’m not keen on Truther memes. Repeating things doesn’t increase their accuracy, no matter how many join in nor how often the chorus is repeated. I’m all in favour of a proper investigation. I think that senior officials who blocked investigations, destroyed evidence, withheld information and failed to protect the population (whether negligently or deliberately), as well as those shady organisations which have for decades nurtured and employed religious extremists, should all be called to account. But this amplification of Truther mythologies demonstrably is not achieving this goal. Quite the opposite; tolerance for outlandish theories is losing traction with the public at large.

          Chomsky makes important points about 9/11 based on something similar to “the official story” – well that is what Chomsky has always done; he uses governments’ own documents to disprove those governments’ stated objectives, thus revealing their hypocrisy. The 9/11Truth movement should let him get on with it, and certainly not risk discrediting him with accusations of “dishonesty” for his non-acceptance of assertions that Truthers claim only to be theories. This attack on Chomsky goes way beyond “just asking questions”. It says “we know the answers and you’re dishonest for not accepting them”. That just fractures us as an opposition and weakens our call for a full investigation.

    • Clark

      This comment was from me while my comments were apparently being blocked. I was trying to post a link to Google’s cached copy of the Off Guardian smear-piece against Chomsky.

    • Clark

      This also was from me. From what I know of the admin interface of this site, my comments were being blocked either by real-time attention of a moderator, or by IP address range. A further possibility is the spam filter, but if so my comments were never restored from the Spam folder.

  • Will Freemen

    Dear Craig,
    From your short article above it is clear that you instinctively consider it as impossible that a government / or a rogue group within, will kill 3,000 of it’s own people. But the history of the world clearly shows the contrary. How many men has died in the countless wars that was instigated by the leaders of governments? But will a democratically elected government indulge in starting wars? Yes, they will. The Iraq and Libyan wars are the most recent examples. Even the Tonkin Bay incident that started the Vietnam war, was a false-flag. Do these political leaders give a damn how many people die so that they can enrich themselves and their cronies?

    I urge you to take just one weekend off from socialising in pubs to read the links below. Not hard to do is it? After reading this, please review your article above and publish it on this website.
    http://www.911truth.org/the-top-40-reasons-to-doubt-the-offical-story/
    http://patriotsquestion911.com/
    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article23460.htm

    The last article is by Dr Alan Sabrosky, a Jewish American. In the article they even give his email address. Why don’t you contact him? His details are below.
    Alan Sabrosky (Ph.D, University of Michigan) is a ten-year US Marine Corps veteran and a graduate of the US Army War College.
    And the following from the Patriots link above:
    Alan N. Sabrosky, PhD – Former Director of Studies, Strategic Studies Institute and holder of the General of the Army Douglas MacArthur Chair of Research, U.S. Army War College. A Marine Corps Vietnam veteran with 10 years of service. Graduate of the U.S. Army War College. Teaching and research appointments have included the United States Military Academy, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Middlebury College and Catholic University. While in government service, he held concurrent adjunct professorships at Georgetown University and the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS). Writer and consultant specializing in national and international security affairs, lecturing widely on defense and foreign affairs in the United States and abroad. His published work includes thirteen books or monographs and over one hundred forty articles, chapters and book reviews.

    • Kempe

      Alan Sabrosky admits his mind was made up for him by watching Loose Change, the well-debunked Truther documentary. He brings no new information to the debate, just tries to stamp the same tired old stuff with his authority. He blames MOSSAD by the way not the US government/Illuminatii/lizards etc.

    • Clark

      Will Freemen, October 10, 15:22:

      “you instinctively consider it as impossible that a government / or a rogue group within, will kill 3,000 of it’s own people”

      Actually, Craig explicitly included rogue individuals and/or groups within:

      “I do not rule out any point on the whole spectrum of surveillance, penetration and agent provocateur activity by any number of possible actors”

      He didn’t even rule out Dick Cheney if you read it carefully. Craig’s post essentially says the attacks were neither US government policy nor a US covert operation – so neither public nor secret policy – and that they were committed by Saudi-inspired extremists that the US itself had nurtured. That seems reasonable to me because it’s what the most serious whistleblowers have been trying to make heard – Coleen Rowley, Sibel Edmonds and Michael Springmann.

  • Macky

    From the article “2.3 trillion was missing from the Pentagon budget. Wedge One was where analysts from the Office of Naval Intelligence were about to start work tracking the missing money.”

    Yet I thought I read somewhere that the papers relating to investigating this missing money where housed in Building 7 ?

    It is possible that papers relating to this missing money were in both sites ? Anybody know anything more ?

    Even more to the point, is this alleged missing 2.3 trillion a red herring, in that is it really “missing” money or just money that it wasn’t able to be tracked properly? ;

    http://www.911myths.com/html/rumsfeld__9_11_and__2_3_trilli.html

    • Paul Barbara

      The $2.3 trillion was being investigated in the Pentagon area which was hit; the papers in Building 7 were the Enron and other mass scandals.

    • Clark

      Suggestions that Building 7 was deliberately destroyed to conceal records has to be placed in context if it is to carry any meaning. Building 7 was at the heart of the US financial district, therefore many other nearby buildings may well have contained equally incriminating records.

      In a very brief search I have failed to find any connection between Enron and Unocal. Chevron (Unocal) and Houston Natural Gas (Enron) may even have been competitors. If so, it could equally be argued that one company destroyed another company’s building in order to disadvantage them by destruction of records and resources.

      Since such arguments can cut both ways, destruction of records would seem very weak evidence for deliberate demolition.

      It is also the case that Enron was successfully prosecuted, so Building 7’s destruction couldn’t have been decisive.

  • Dave

    Macky are you saying the announcement on 9/10 was just a coincidence and was the audit office chosen because it was a lesser important part of the Pentagon?

      • Macky

        @Kempe, if on the one hand the debunking link I gave above iro the 2,3 trillion is correct in it’s details, it means that this is a complete red herring/false lead/non-point, however if it is wrong &/or is trying to cover up a real issue of missing money, then it would make sense to announce it before an event that would later ensure that any efforts made looking in to it, and the source documents/records themselves, were completely destroyed, because nobody can then accuse you of trying to hide the issue, nor can they prove that you didn’t really start to investigate the issue either.

  • Clark

    Let’s imagine we’re a firefighter on 9/11. The first tower comes down, and we suspect that it did so because it was rigged with hundreds of explosive charges. Nevertheless we enter, or know that our comrades are entering the remaining tower. This second tower also seems to be destroyed by explosives. Let’s imagine we’re one of the ones that get out. By now, hundreds of our friends and colleagues have been killed by whoever rigged the explosives. We spend the next few hours trying to put out fires and/or search for survivors in the rubble, when someone (who?) orders us to cordon off another building so it can be destroyed with explosives.

    Later, NIST says there were no explosives, not even the building we were told to cordon off. There are regular 9/11 Truth rallies right outside our fire station saying that NIST are liars and there were explosives,, but we don’t even go and stand with them because we’re so scared. We’d rather keep going into burning buildings (that might be rigged with explosives) than publicly question the person that ordered us to prepare for an explosive demolition.

    And this applies to how many firefighters?

    Still, if medical staff killed Barry Jennings or covered up his murder in hospital, I suppose anything’s possible.

    It’s amazing that, over and over again, these 9/11 demolition theories malign the ordinary people. They supposedly aim for the US government, but have not implicated one single suspect. All the suspects are in NIST, FDNY, the student, academic, engineering, medical and professional communities. Thousands and thousands of people are keeping quiet because they know they’d lose their jobs or end up like Jennings; even the emergency services know that the emergency room staff can’t be trusted, and The Conspiracy might just demolish a hospital or a fire station at any time. No one ever speaks out.

    Alex Jones is right; nearly all the US population are sheeple. Chomsky’s such a gatekeeper; if it wasn’t for the likes of him these people might say something. They should choose a better hero.

  • Paul Barbara

    I believe it highly likely Barry Jennings was murdered in hospital – just like Princess Di was murdered my ‘medical’ personnel.
    The Patriot Act was printed before 9/11, the two Senators targeted by anthrax were both against the Patriot Act, but ‘changed their minds’ after the anthrax attack.
    As for Bazant and NIST, 9/11: Tony Szamboti’s Open Letter To Zdeněk Bažant About WTC Towers’ Collapse Lies:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75T6LsCIeGc

    Denying The Obvious – NIST, Bažant and the 9/11 Debunkers:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=luGkdBs95kY

    • Clark

      I would expect hospital one of the most difficult and risky places to try to get away with murder. Hospitals are full of staff trying to keep the patients alive, and who want to establish cause of death should they unexpectedly die.

      The linked video is dreadful and almost entirely uninformative. I will try to get around to reading Szamboti’s letter after I have finished reading Bažant and Zhou 2001. I’m still only a third of the way through NIST NCSTAR 1.

      • Clark

        Paul, you could ask Glenn about this. His wife is a medical professional. And you could look up murder rates in various environments; I expect hospitals to have one of the lowest murder rates.

        Jennings’ testimony is that he suspected he was being led past corpses. He didn’t see corpses because the officer advised him not to look. This was at about 13:00, when bodies littered the area near Building 7, which didn’t collapse until over four hours later, so any corpses Jennings may have suspected could not have been killed by Building 7’s collapse. Jennings testimony contains nothing incriminating, so it seems most unlikely that he was murdered for it.

        • Kempe

          The “explosions” Jennings claimed to have heard were almost certainly the North Tower collapsing and debris striking WTC 7. The timing would be about right and as Jennings and his two colleagues were brought out of WTC 4-5 hours before it collapsed how could they have been demolition charges?

        • Paul Barbara

          No, you can’t even get that right, He didn’t say he was being led past bodies, but that he was waking on bodies. And this was after the explosions which had trapped him and another guy upstairs, until he was rescued by First Responders.

          Sure, hospitals are supposed to heal people, not kill them, and the vast majority of hospitals do just that. But the exception proves the rule. Just as doctors are supposed to preserve life, many (certainly not the majority) have overseem torure sessions, and even joined in them. Nurses and doctors have deliberately killed patients – here are a few http://www.oddee.com/item_98674.aspx
          Retired Major General Smedley Darlington Butler (who wrote ‘War Is A Racket’ was unwisely chosen by US Industrialists and Banksters to head a Fascist Revolution in the US in the early 1930’s; he exposed the plot to Congress, but no one was jailed. He later made a nuisance of himself, by going around the country speaking out about the US joining in WWII (which FDR, the Military Brass and the Banksters wanted). He checked into a hospital in 1940, and within a fortnight was dead -convenient for some.
          More recently we have the appalling treatment of Princess Diana.
          And, even more recently,:
          Joan Rivers Murdered For Exposing Michelle Obama As Tranny!! 2014′:
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tv5Xwa44u8A

          ‘Joan Rivers Dead Two Months After Calling Obama Gay, Michelle a Tranny’:
          http://www.infowars.com/joan-rivers-dead-two-months-after-calling-obam a-gay-michelle-a-tranny/

          ‘Joan Rivers’ Daughter Sues Medical Clinic Over Comedian’s Death’:
          http://www.rollingstone.com/tv/news/joan-rivers-daughter-sues-medical- clinic-over-comedians-death-20150127

          Joan Rivers’ death was from a clinic, not a hospital, but a doctor was to blame. You may, or may not, accept that the circumstances are extremely suspicious. I certainly do.

          • Kempe

            Actually he said he was stepping over bodies but if he wasn’t looking how would he know what he was stepping over?

1 95 96 97 98 99 134

Comments are closed.