The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 The Saker ArchiveBlogview
The 9/11 Truth Movement 15 Years Later
Where Do We Stand?
shutterstock_310745324
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Strings  Include Comments

Note: the purpose of this article is not to debunk the official conspiracy theory about how 2 aircraft brought down 3 buildings and other such nonsense, or to present an alternative theory, but to evaluate how much the 9/11 Truth movement has achieved in the past 15 years.

It has been 15 years since the terrible events of 9/11 and it is now a good time to look back at what the 9/11 movement did achieve, but also at where it failed. The biggest and most obvious failure was, of course, the failure to prevent the bloodbath the Empire calls the “GWOT” (Global War on Terror) and all the other wars which the GWOT, in turn, generated in Northern Africa, the Middle-East and elsewhere. Yes, at that we did fail, but I am not quite sure that the blame for it can be put on the 9/11 Truth movement. Let me explain.

The intelligence process is sometimes described by the “three As”: acquisition, analysis and acceptance. If we compare the 9/11 Truth movement with an intelligence agency working on behalf of the people of our planet, then I would argue that we brilliantly succeeded in the first “A”: acquisition.

Acquisition:

We now have made public many Gigabytes of video, audio, texts, radar, seismic and other materials recorded on 9/11 – more than enough to establish at the very least a “probable cause” to demand a new, independent and legally empowered investigation of the events of 9/11. From the dust of the WTC buildings in DC to the exact radar track of AA77, UA175 and AA11 – the 9/11 Truth movement has collected an enormous amount of forensic data which is now publicly available for analysis.

Analysis:

On the analysis aspect, after a rather long series of false starts, due mainly to the enthusiastic efforts of well-intentioned but technically incompetent volunteer researchers, the 9/11 Truth movement eventually began to recruit an impressive array of scientists, engineers, architects, pilots, military officials, etc. And the result of their work has been nothing short of formidable. At lot of that (peer-reviewed) analysis is now available on the website of the Journal of 9/11 Studies (http://www.journalof911studies.com/) and has even resulted in an impressive “consensus findings list” (http://www.consensus911.org/the-911-consensus-points/) which is also publicly available. A good example of this kind of rigorous scientific analysis can be found in the paper “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe” published by the The Open Chemical Physics Journal in 2009:

If much of the acquisition was initially done by amateurs, and if some, but not all of the analysis, was also done by amateurs (including brilliant ones, like physics teacher David Chandler who single-handedly forced NIST to admit to free-fall acceleration for 2.25 seconds – see below), most of the analysis by now has been done by top level academics and scientists who have had such a devastating effect on the official conspiracy theory (that is what the official narrative about 9/11 should be called, a “conspiracy theory” since it centers on an al-Qaeda conspiracy to attack the USA) that the US government has basically had to give-up on defending it (more about that further below).

Acceptance:

Most intelligence analysts would agree that acceptance, be it by a government or by a deliberately misinformed public, is often the most difficult one of the three “A’s” of the intelligence process. This is, alas, where the 9/11 Truth movement has mostly failed. And yet, even the hyper-official and super-politically correct Wikipedia has to admit, most people do simply not believe that al-Qaeda did it. The problem is that this general disbelief has had no result whatsoever on the US political landscape. In a way, this makes sense: 9/11 happened in the beginning of a Republican Administration which, in turn, means that it was planned under a Democratic Administration. Not that I believe that there is much of a difference between the Demoblicans and the Republicrats (Pepsi vs Cola, really), but this simply illustrates two basic facts of the US political system:

1) The US “deep state” is not affected by changes in the White House

2) The US “deep state” is equally embedded in both factions of the “1% Party” in power

In a way, the USA is very similar to the bad old Soviet Union: it is ruled by a Nomenklatura, an “Inner Party” to use Orwell’s expression, which keeps the rest of the 99% in a condition that I would describe as semi-serfdom (“semi” because the modern serf can legally leave his place of labor and move to another one). And while the real “deep state” is only a small sub-section of the US Nomenklatura, the entire Nomenklatura is bound to it by a deep sense of class solidarity. This is what primarily explains the collective blindness of quite literally all the US elites about 9/11: just like everybody now knows that Kennedy was not killed by a lone gunman, most people by now suspect that the official 9/11 conspiracy theory is a stupid load of hogwash – but they just don’t see what difference it makes for them and the world they live in. Combine a silent majority and a ruling elite acting in lockstep to deny the obvious, and you have today’s apparent defeat of the 9/11 Truth movement.

ORDER IT NOW

In defense of the 9/11 Truth movement, I have to admit that it took me eight years to finally realize what had happened (you can read about how I became a “truther” here). So I am hardly in a position to criticize others for having such difficulties coming to terms with the immense consequences of the “controlled demolition” theory (this is what usually scares people away, the realization that “if 9/11 was an inside job then…”). Another powerful deterrent is the social and professional stigma attached to being a “fringe lunatic” or “conspiracy theorist” (sometimes even “anti-Semite” and “Holocaust denier”) just for daring the question the official fairytale. Of course, the stakes are sky-high: if 9/11 was an inside job, then the US government is not only absolutely illegitimate, it is in fact an occupation government controlled by either foreign elements, or traitors or both. And there are those who will deliberately stick their head in the sand as deep as possible to avoid having to contemplate the mind-blowing consequences of the undeniable fact that the so-called “land of the brave” is run by an occupation government which has reduced the so-called “brave” to a serf-like status and that several thousands of US Americans have been deliberately sacrificed to induce a mindless patriotic hysteria (with Chinese-made flags and all) to make it possible to use the poorest US Americans as cannon fodder in genocidal wars all over the planet. Yes, that is, indeed, a very painful realization: the American Dream is just that – a dream.

There are also two well-known social psychological phenomena at work here: the Asch Conformity Experiment and the Milgram Obedience Experiment. The first one shows that humans tend to see what they think the majority of their fellow-humans see, while the second one shows the power of authority and its ability to make humans act against their best judgment.

Finally, there is also the well-known “where I sit is where I stand” phenomenon at work: any and all those whose livelihood, reputation or personal self-image directly depends on the “respectability” of the system we are living in, including journalists and bloggers”, have a huge interest in rejecting reality and upholding an absurd narrative simply because their own well-being is directly affected by the “system”. In that sense yes, the 9/11 Truth movement is composed of “fringe” elements, of people who have deliberately given up on official “respectability” and being seen as “serious” and who have chosen to say “the Emperor is naked” even if they get sneered at (but rarely debated!) by the millions of volunteer sycophants which form the real power base of the regime in control of Washington, DC.

The big victory: World Trade Center 7′s 2.25 seconds of free-fall acceleration

In spite of it all, the 9/11 Truth movement has had a huge victory: it has basically forced the US government to admit that explosives were used to bring down WTC7! Okay, not quite in these terms. But by direct implication, yes. I will not repeat the entire story here, but I will direct you to these two websites:

http://www1.ae911truth.org/en/evidence/35-key-facts/275-nist-admits-freefall.html

https://kendoc911.wordpress.com/nist/nist-admits-freefall/

To make a long story short, NIST, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, has been forced to admit that for 2.25 seconds WTC7 (which, by the way, was not hit by any aircraft on that day), was collapsing a free-fall acceleration. This is only possible if 8 floors of this huge buildings were removed instantly and symmetrically. And that, my friends, is only doable by the use of carefully placed explosives. Here is the full NIST report which I encourage you to read:

The key part is in Chapter 3, pp 45-46:

Saker911Truth

This is NIST’s explanation for this graphic:

Saker911Truth-2

Pretty clear, no? Free fall acceleration for approximately 8 stories or 32.0m (105 ft). Free fall acceleration means that there was no resistance encountered while the top of the building when through the space where 8 floors of reinforced concrete stood just seconds before. We are talking about a building with had 58 perimeter columns and 25 core columns. And yet, 8 floors of that somehow disappeared almost instantly. If you read the full report, you will see that NIST does admit this, but never recognizes the implications of this fact. In fact, under a separate section entitled “HYPOTHETICAL BLAST SCENARIOS” NIST specifically excludes any controlled demolition based on the (completely wrong) assumptions that no blasts were heard (they were, of course). But that is just damage control. The moment NIST admitted to those 2.25 seconds of free-fall acceleration the NIST report was dead in the water. The doubleplusgoodthinking media and blogosphere chose to ignore that. Others, of course, did notice.

This is the latest brochure of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911T) and the issue of WTC 7 is one of the major arguments it makes:

AE911T also published another full report entitled “WORLD TRADE CENTER PHYSICS : Why Constant Acceleration Disproves Progressive Collapse” which also deals with the, shall we say, “acceleration issues” of WTC1 and WTC2 which shows that all three towers fell in a way inconsistent with the official version of events:

Finally, Dr. Robert Korol, professor emeritus of civil engineering at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, and a fellow of the Canadian Society for Civil Engineering, has led a team of academic researchers in preparing two peer-reviewed scientific papers on the destruction of World Trade Center Building 7. Both papers were published in the Challenge Journal of Structural Mechanics — the first one in July 2015, the second in February 2016.

At this point, it would be fair to say that the 9/11 Truth movement has proven the “controlled demolition” theory beyond a reasonable doubt. This is important because it makes it possible for the 9/11 Truth movement to now enter a completely different phase of its struggle. Let me explain by making a comparison with a hypothetical murder.

The logical investigative sequence

One of the logical fallacies used by the supporters of the official conspiracy theory against the 9/11 Truth movement is to invert the logical investigative sequence of investigation. They typically say something like this: “it would have been impossible to place a sufficient amount of explosives in the Twin Towers (supporters of the official narrative typically don’t like to mention WTC7) so your theory makes no sense”. In reality, of course, this is not how a crime is investigated.

Imagine you find a completely closed room with the body of a murdered person inside. No cop would ever say, “since nobody could enter the room no murder has happened”. That would be ridiculous. What the detective would say is that a murder has, indeed, taken place, but that at this point the investigation does not understand how it happened. Likewise, the external observations of the collapse of WTC 1, WTC2 and WTC7 clearly show that these buildings were brought down by controlled demolition, and that by itself is sufficient to demand a new investigation. The fact that the 9/11 Truth movement cannot explain every detail of what took place on that day cannot be held against it. Now that we have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that controlled demolitions did bring down these buildings, it would be the task of the new independent investigation to, well, investigate and explain how what we observed happened.

Of course, no such investigation will ever be allowed by the US “deep state”, that is pretty clear. Besides, it is the credibility of the entire US Nomenklatura which would be threatened by such an investigation, because if it became truly and officially known and understood that 9/11 was, indeed, an ‘inside job’ the consequence of that would be nothing short of “regime change” in the USA, a complete collapse of the AngloZionist Empire. So we are not exactly holding our breath.

Even better, some researchers have done a fantastic job investigating the “how” of 9/11. I highly recommend the reading of the detailed research by Kevin Ryan, the whistle-blower from Environmental Health Laboratories Inc., a subsidiary of Underwriters Laboratories Inc., (who fired him for daring to question the official version) “Demolition Access to the WTC Towers” which gives a very credible scenario of how the three buildings could have been prepped with explosives and by whom. See for yourself:

I would note that one does not have to agree with every detail of Ryan’s analysis. The importance of his work lies primarily in the fact that it is simply factually not true that the 9/11 Truth movement did not come up with any explanation of how the buildings could have been filled with explosives – it did and that is more than enough to, again, demand an open and legally empowered independent investigation into these events.

Conclusion

I think that the 9/11 Truth movement has been an absolutely fantastic success and that it has achieved every single goal which was achievable in the reality of the AngloZionist Empire. The fact that no real investigation was ever launched or that nobody was ever arrested for the crimes of 9/11 is not the fault of the 9/11 Truth movement but a direct result of the kind of ignorance, passivity and general stupidification which the Empire has successfully imposed on most of its population. Furthermore, while there have been plenty of false-flags since 9/11, none happened inside the USA and none involved thousands of casualties. So while “they” (the US “deep state”) did get away with it, “they” probably did not expect to be so strongly and, I might add, successfully challenged by their own population. Of course, it ain’t over until the fat lady sings, and we might still witness some major false flag inside the USA (say a “dirty bomb” as a way to preempt a election’s outcome?), but at least for the past 15 years this did not happen and if it ever happens (I think that it probably will), it will probably not be as brazen and “in your face” as 9/11 was. As for the already deeply suspicious general public, it will be far less likely to simply buy into the official version and display the same level of patriotic hysteria as the first time around.

I am personally deeply grateful to all those in the 9/11 Truth movement who opened my eyes to what took place 15 years ago: I am awed by the courage, integrity and intelligence of the thousands of people who refused to call an orange an apple:

I firmly believe that any person who does not understand what really happened 15 years ago is also by definition unable to understand everything and anything which has happened since. 9/11 was the seminal event which ushered in our current era and, just for that reason only, it is probably also the single most important event in our recent history. Christ told us that “nothing is secret, that shall not be made manifest; neither any thing hid, that shall not be known” (Luke 8:17) and that “ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:32). The Empire has already given up on actively defending its ridiculous conspiracy theory and it now only counts on the indifference and passivity of its serfs to keep the 9/11 Truth movement as officially ignored as can be. When challenged, the regime’s sycophants will always resort to their traditional cocktail of straw-man fallacies and ad hominems. And this is all very good because it shows a simple thing: we are winning.

 

P.S. And for those of you who might be truly new to this topic, here are
the two movies I most recommend watching about it

911 Loose Change and American Coup:

Fabled Enemies:

 
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
[]
  1. My question: why bother collapsing world trade center 7? People barely even noticed, nor do they much remember. Weren’t the two towers and the Pentagon enough?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Le biel
    WTC 7 may have been the primary target.
    , @Alfa158
    I've only read one attempt to explain that. The explanation was that WTC 7 was actually the real target, the rest of the 9/11 attack was just a misdirection. The CIA/FBI/DOD etc had the records on their Kennedy assassination operations stored in a vault under WTC 7 and were worried the information might be leaked so they decided that instead of just shredding the stuff they would incinerate the whole building, and in turn to cover that up, they also blew up the two main towers, the Pentagon, and tried to blow up the White House as a distraction.
    The story was so outlandish though that I think it was just someone trying to discredit the 9/11 truth movement.
    Maybe someone can chime in with a credible explanation.
    , @Jacques Sheete
    Insurance money?

    Also, apparently ( don't quote me on this), there was asbestos in the building making them obsolete and scheduled for either remediation or destruction, but who really knows?
    , @folktruther
    because building 7 had already been filled with explosives, and they couldn't allow anyone to examine it. It might have been the target of the plane shot down in Pennsylvania.
    , @Thirdeye
    Exactly. It the idea was to sell a fake idea that 1 and 2 were brought down by the airplane hits, bringing down 7 made no sense at all.
    , @Colleen Pater
    I think if any of this is true it has to be the intended target of PA plain and so they have no choice but to drop it any way. Ive been a skeptic mainly because you figure they cant hide something like this, if saker is correct that they havnt been able to hide it their goes that theory. The more minor problems were how did they get away with planting the charges, I have worked construction in that building and while in some ways theres security up the wazoo in another its rreally porous ive said for decades before and after anyone waring carharts and any bullshit ID can talk their way into any NYC building because Ive done it many times we are not set up yet with security and have to get in anyway to not lose time money and we do it, if you actually had the slightest amount of information it would be so easy. Once inside construction workers rule if this elevator, retrofit were real it could easily have been compromised. I know the buildong main strength is not the outside panels but the steel spine around the elevator cores if you can find a reason to be in there you golden.
    Ok how and why

    lets stipulate our military and spies certainly have the technology to control demolish a building
    and lets admit for reasons never explained we are butt fuck buddies with the saudis and they are butt fuck buddies with terrorists so certainly getting some stupid sand niggers to crash planes would not be hard in fact that parts pretty much the official story except they dont quite admit the saudis are behind it though they admit theyre all over it. so we could easily set up the terrorist cover and get some spooks inside and plant the charges. I think its not hard to understand they can control the media narrative pretty easily. so the question is why and how to get a lot of decent people to help them?

    Heres what i think at the very least people at the top have been concerned for several decades that technology has reached a place where they cant control it and a private actor or group of actors private or state could- well take out the planet actually. Theres a dozen ot more scenarios that are quite plausible. so say youre not even illuminatti just a hardworking spook former military or whatever patriotic intelligent guy you could be a devout christian or a liberal and still start thinking hey its my responsibility as a deep state apparatchik in the bowels of the most powerful nation on earth to make sure mankind doesnt get snuffed by some wackjob. You only really need a few well-produced presentations to convince enough equally well-intentioned deep state types and if the deep state even bothers with the politicians enough of them as well. I bet i could convince any of you in a documentary or two the threat is real and our responsibility is to stop this threat , because you know what that pretty much true. Now you dont even need any secret conspiracy illuminatti to be behind it but if there is such assholes well obviously theyre alredy pretty good at this sort of thing. So Im sure their first thought is this internet thing and spy equipment is the way to stay ahead we just need to ramp up a total surveillance state for the good mind you, problem is it will have to be enormous and its illegal we need an excuse to wipe the right to privacy out of the american discourse. Oh sure its hard to get some catholic cia guy to wipe out 5000 americans to save the world but its not impossible, say a small group decided all this guys that had already wacked a fair amount of bad guys overthrown a government or two maybe killed a bunch of gooks or something as kid soldiers career guys theyre good guys these spooks for the most part family they like cops they just get hard and have to turn off empathy and remind themselves it the greater good. now a small of group of these guys become willig to sacrifice some innocents certainly they are willing to sacrifice the next tier down of co conspirators. so the next teir is likely special forces types loyal obedient dont ask questions what they dont know is they have to be turned off either during the event or soon after since no one knows who they might be their sudden demise is not suspicious.
    The ral question is do we owe these masters of the universe a thanks or are they the devil. I think we have to take seriously that this transends demcrat republican so as saker states they either work independent of our polititions or enough polititions are in on a farce democracy, UNZ makes a decent case that we sure do seem to have a lot of contests between opponents that both have serious baggage that any intelligence agency would know all about nd could control a president congressman etc, anyone who has access to the entire intelligence could control almost anyone they wanted.so it may or may not include willing or unwilling politicians i think we can get an idea about what these guys think and who they are by what they do things like globalism are obviously not an organic development and we know the davos types are all about that kind of thing and so we can look around the world at whats being brough into being and figure out what these guys are about, they probably think they are on the side of the angels most leftists do the whole global thing is argued as the best way to manage the world for all. which is why so many leftists support so many aspects of it. The question is is it really the only way the best way is it really best to have us all ignorant and let them keep themselves honest. Id say despite many of them having good intentions theyre probably the anti christ incarnate.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    http://www.unz.com/tsaker/the-911-truth-movement-15-years-later-where-do-we-stand/#comment-1564840
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    The purported cell phone calls made from the hijacked planes on 9/11 have been proven to have been impossible:

    Read More
    • Replies: @War for Blair Mountain
    Anon

    The family of the victims on those three passenger jets refute that claim of yours and Professor Robert Ray Griffith. You are a vile-evil-psychopath with a very nasty political agenda


    The originator of this lie is of course Philosophy Professor Robert Ray Griffith who wrote a book calling for solidarity with Muslim "American" Muslims and 9/11 Truthers.


    Just a reminder:recently a five year old Native Born White American Child was raped and urinated on by three young Muslim Legal Immigrant Males in Idaho. I blame the 9/11 Truthers for this monumental crime against this Native Born White American Female Child.



    Richard Spencer-Jared Taylor-Peter Brimelow should have talked about nothing else but the brutal gang rape of this Native Born White American Child in Idaho during their Alt Right Press Conference.


    Spencer-Taylor-Brimelow...the three CUCKS of the Alt Right did lectured us about 1)Asians are smarter than White Americans..2)and how much they admired the (((neocons))) during thier Alt Right comming out party.


    Time to be Alt Alt Right...
    , @Lawrence Fitton
    i read from a reliable source that there was no cell phone activity on the plane that crashed in the field, ostensibly from passenger revolt. brave americans giving their lives for the lives of other americans is a good narrative. as well, a proper motive for revenge.
  3. @guest
    My question: why bother collapsing world trade center 7? People barely even noticed, nor do they much remember. Weren't the two towers and the Pentagon enough?

    WTC 7 may have been the primary target.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    To tale that line is to spin off theory number 500 as to how it might all hang together and involve as much detailed examining of facts and reasoning as any of them. Actually it is probably versions 500 to 525 depending on what motive you attribute to alternative villains for desperàtely wanting WTC 7 down,
  4. A key element is that the guilty help keep this incident quiet with dozens of paid “floggers” roaming the internet to squash all doubters. The tactic is to demand that if anyone doubts the official story, they must explain exactly who did what and why. That is a trap. Any sane person who reads about details knows the official story is false, so just stand on that and refuse taunts to explain unknown details. The US government has even admitted it false with the recent release of the 28 Pages! The Saudi Ambassador and close friend of the Bush family sent the hijackers thousands of dollars! The Paki Intel service sent them thousands of dollars! Osama Bin Laden had nothing to do with the attack! This is not in dispute, but I don’t know why the WTC was attacked or how.

    I don’t follow all this closely, but I stumble across odd things, like why did WTC-6 explode? This was an eight story building next to the twin towers. It blew up in a massive explosion before the twin towers fell, all caught on video! I don’t know how or why, but anyone can see that it was blown up, leaving a huge crater.

    https://www.metabunk.org/wtc-6-what-happened-there.t1809/

    Read More
  5. A good example of this kind of rigorous scientific analysis can be found in the paper “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe” published by the The Open Chemical Physics Journal in 2009:

    You mean the journal that was shut down for accepting a paper with nothing but random sentences? Quite the accomplishment.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    And the editor resigned in protest over the publication of the article in question!
  6. I can 100% endorse this statement from the article:

    “I am personally deeply grateful to all those in the 9/11 Truth movement who opened my eyes to what took place 15 years ago: I am awed by the courage, integrity and intelligence of the thousands of people who refused to call an orange an apple.”

    Some other points would be;

    Article: ‘So while “they” (the US “deep state”) did get away with it, “they” probably did not expect to be so strongly and, I might add, successfully challenged by their own population.’

    Comment: On 9/11 there was an infrastructure in place to support a Neocon dictatorship (Emergency Regime) led by VP Cheney involving the Patriot Act, Homeland Security and national emergency procedures dating from the Reagan administration. If they had been triggered (for example by a general Middle eastern war involving Iran) then the US population wouldn’t be challenging anything since a democratic US after 9/11 wasn’t part of the plan.

    Article: ‘…and we might still witness some major false flag inside the USA (say a “dirty bomb” as a way to preempt a election’s outcome?), but at least for the past 15 years this did not happen and if it ever happens (I think that it probably will), it will probably not be as brazen and “in your face” as 9/11 was.’

    Comment: More likely would be a Weimar style financial meltdown originating with the FED ( a QE to end all QE’s or a big rise in interest rates). This would be chaotic , allowing the Nomenklatura to try again for an Emergency Regime (to save the USA ).

    Basically time is running against them as this article so clearly shows, and they have to have a dictatorship one way or another.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama

    Comment: More likely would be a Weimar style financial meltdown originating with the FED ( a QE to end all QE’s or a big rise in interest rates). This would be chaotic
     
    Ridiculous. I had this exchange with the Saker in June of 2015 [ http://www.unz.com/tsaker/the-meaning-of-the-us-saber-rattling-at-the-borders-of-russia/#comment-1016780 ], where he asserted :

    But methinks that the debt monetization strategy as currently practiced by both Japan and the US will end in either hyperinflation or default, or both.
     
    So this has been the trope, that "hyperinflation" shall be inflicted on the public by the deliberate actions of the "Nomenclatura", since at least 2009. Where is it? This has become quite the 'end-of-days' portent hasn't it?

    I had extended a wager to Saker; it was obviously declined.

    The basic idea here is that our screaming set, "hyperinflation" it does not understand . Short of a destruction in U.S productive capacity a hyperinflation is a near impossiblity. The Fed can and might [small probability] engage in more QE, as may the ECB, BoE and BoJ. It still will not come to pass.

    If you wish to call for a hyperinflationary event, we shall hold your feet to fire and ask for an expiry date on that call. I'll offer the reverse: over the course of the next year we will not experience hyperinflation. Upon expiry of that date I shall extend it to another year and so on for the next decade.

    What's your move?

  7. @guest
    My question: why bother collapsing world trade center 7? People barely even noticed, nor do they much remember. Weren't the two towers and the Pentagon enough?

    I’ve only read one attempt to explain that. The explanation was that WTC 7 was actually the real target, the rest of the 9/11 attack was just a misdirection. The CIA/FBI/DOD etc had the records on their Kennedy assassination operations stored in a vault under WTC 7 and were worried the information might be leaked so they decided that instead of just shredding the stuff they would incinerate the whole building, and in turn to cover that up, they also blew up the two main towers, the Pentagon, and tried to blow up the White House as a distraction.
    The story was so outlandish though that I think it was just someone trying to discredit the 9/11 truth movement.
    Maybe someone can chime in with a credible explanation.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymouse
    By hypothesis, let us assume the events were as the Truthers assert. As I am not competent to address the science addressing the event, as I know that I do not know much, I must put the issue in the Pending tray. . . forever. I do ask who is the cui bono? If the Deep State did it, why did they do it? What is the bonum that is sought?

    IMO, that unanswered question should be the starting point of one's thinking about it.
    , @JG
    WTC 7 was planned long before 9/11 for demolition. WTC leasee, Larry Silverstein said in an early interview, "The building was unsafe due to fire, so decided to "pull it" (blow it up)." A demolition takes weeks to plan and prepare. Why blow up his leased building? He received $4.65 billion insurance for all of WTC! Good enough reason? The fact that one building was demolished throws suspicion on the whole "terrorists flew planes" idea.
    Pilots have already stated that airliners could not have hit WTC 1 & 2 at 500 mph, or the Pentagon at such low altitude.
    Fire from kerosene ("aviation fuel") cannot melt steel. Aluminium and plastic fuselage and wings cannot destroy heavy steel beams. So, no airliners hit these three buildings.
    The footage and later "evidence" - wrong jet engine placed near WTC 1 - was faked. Rumsfeld in an early interview, later removed from the 'net, said a missile hit the Pentagon, where only one small jet engine, but no landing gear, baggage, human remains, was found.
    In sum, an audacious coup to so stun the US public (already numbed by their controlled media) to believe ME terrorists had attacked them that they would support war in the ME. However, the perpetrators failed to reckon on an alert group with internet access to dissect in fine detail this event and unravel it.
    Nevertheless, 9/11 was a "success", allowing the US to wage war across the ME and Africa, draining social resources from a population too stunned to protest about their worsening standard of living.
  8. Furthermore, while there have been plenty of false-flags since 9/11, none happened inside the USA

    I’m a bit puzzled by this statement. What about these things like San Bernardino and Orlando? Surely the Saker does not believe the official story on those, does he?

    Of course, anything that did happen in the USA after 9/11 was of comparatively small scale, that’s true, but…

    In any case, it’s really an excellent article.

    Read More
  9. Even Saker himself does not believe this silly article. His hyperbolic praise for a handful of weirdos is hilarious, especially his use of Wikipedia stats on world opinion, especially shame avoiding Muslim opinion, to claim some sort of traction in the US lol. What he has done is found a rich seam of loons and paranoid schizophrenics whom he has realised he can mine for cash for the rest of his life. It is the L L Ron Hubbard retirement plan.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Not a bad guess at motive perhaps. I was disposed to "Agree" but when I tried to I got a note saying only Commenters with 10 recent published comments could use the facility.

    Very odd as I have posted dozens on this App and browser.
    , @bluedog
    Hmm so what your saying is that everyone not believing the official story, or that anyone who dis-agrees with your narrow view of the facts are "weirdo's" and you probably believe that Oswald was the shooter in the JFK killing,which of course make you post suspect to say the least as to what your true intent really is.!!!
    , @Wally
    The hasbarists have arrived.

    You are exactly what Saker is talking about.

    Insert other foot.
    , @HardFacts
    To This is Our Home (which says so much) :

    Saker doesn't believe what he just wrote?? What makes you think he went through the trouble in writing such a well research article he "doesn't believe"? Toward the end of the article he states:

    "Likewise, the external observations of the collapse of WTC 1, WTC2 and WTC7 clearly show that these buildings were brought down by controlled demolition, and that by itself is sufficient to demand a new investigation. The fact that the 9/11 Truth movement cannot explain every detail of what took place on that day cannot be held against it. Now that we have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that controlled demolitions did bring down these buildings, it would be the task of the new independent investigation to, well, investigate and explain how what we observed happened."
  10. […] Für alle, die sich die Mühe antun wollen, es auf Englisch lesen wollen der Text findet sich hier. […]

    Read More
  11. Dear God, not accusations of (shudder) anti-Semitism! You can argue about thermite all you want but whatever you do, don’t notice the Israeli connection.

    Read More
  12. Truthers are very good at explaining what didn’t happen but a little light ‘splainin what did. Why the towers? Perhaps because they are so symbolic of our collective puissance. Why not nuke or chemical plants instead which would have caused real harm not symbolic taunting? Key word taunting. It worked. Still does. We took the bait and lost our minds and our pocketbooks.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seamus Padraig
    The answer to your question should be obvious. The purpose of a false-flag is not to destroy or militarily cripple the country; rather, it is done for the sake of furnishing that country with a pretext for war.
    , @IMNAHA
    One REAL "truther" was unmentioned, the ONLY one that actually scientifically studied WHAT HAPPENED on 9-11 and wrote a textbook about it. She didn't write about how, who or why, only about WHEN and WHAT happened. She was the only person, to my knowledge, who early on took a contractor (NIST) to court over lack of any analysis of the event (billing fraud). To this day "truthers", when not flogging their own pet theories, are trying to come up with a plausible explanation that fits with the HARD FACTS Judy Woods laid out in her textbook about the events of 9-11. BTW,I have yet to see A&E or ANY "truthers" drag anyone into court. IMHO A&E is another LHO organization - just look at the corporate connections of the A&E leadership...
  13. Is The Saker an agent for Clinton, trying to make her opponents sound crazy?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    As good an explanation for his juvenile vapourings as any.
  14. In addition to the well-known psychological syndromes the Saker mentions, I would like to highlight one more explanation for the continued general acceptance of the official story. In his famous 1962 book “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”, Thomas S Kuhn explains that even scientists – let alone lay people – understand the world mostly in terms of “stories”, for which he used the technical term “paradigms”. One of the most important conclusions to which he came was that the vast majority of scientists will never give up even the most discredited and unsatisfactory paradigm – until they have a clearly better one to replace it. As Max Planck so pithily put it, “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it”.

    In the case of 9/11, the relevance of this principle is rather obvious. The vast majority of American citizens, and the ordinary public in other countries, wholly lacks the keenness of mind and habitual scepticism of the scientist – and even many scientists still accept the official story about 9/11. There is a natural reluctance to believe that one’s government is not only lying through its teeth, but has deliberately blown up some of the most prominent buildings in the country, killing nearly 3,000 people in the process. But above and beyond this, most people will never accept that the official story is a pack of lies until they hear an alternative story that clearly and obviously makes better sense to them.

    Of course the Deep State is fully aware of this, and even counted on it. Ever since WW1, US governments have been duping the public with increasingly ambitious propaganda. By the 21st century, they were supremely confident in their abilities – and rightly so. With nearly the whole of the mass media on their side, there is no way that any significant proportion of citizens will ever be persuaded to believe that the official story is untrue.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Erebus
    I've long been an admirer of Thomas Kuhn's.

    Indeed, humans live a narrative that continuously tells them who they are, the world they live in, and their and everybody/everything else's place in it.
    I've often thought that the "truther" versions of 9/11 don't get traction not because they don''t make physical sense, but precisely because they do. I've watched competent professionals, confronted with mathematical proof (that they sometimes worked out for themselves), look from side to side in obvious discomfort and then reject it wholesale using some semi-religious psycho-babble argument like "Nobody could be that evil"....

    Why?
    Well, a part of the answer is that to acknowledge the facts is to also face an life changing decision. That is, whether one is OK with the fact that one's "betters" just murdered 3000 of your compatriots with absolute impunity, or not.
    If not, a moral imperative stares one in the face. One has to go Che Guevara and fight this evil with every fibre of his being, at the cost of one's career, home, (probably) family and any hopes & dreams one may have had for a comfortable, long life.
    The shame of shirking the moral imperative, that one is OK with one's "betters" murdering how ever many they like of ones compatriots, is to admit to cowardice and henceforth to live an unprincipled, grovelling existence at the whim of those "betters".

    Nobody will thank the truther for putting them in that position. And, the smarter they are the worse they react. So, their internal narratives build defences in an earnest desperation, scorning the truth they themselves worked out and casting all other plain facts out the window. No obfuscatory, prevaricating, question-begging, word-mincing tactic will go untried as the lifelong narrative desperately tries to save itself.

    That's humans for ya, and the "betters" know it well. That's how they got to be betters.
  15. The only “accomplishments” of the 9/11 Truth movement have been to drive millions of Americans and others around the world into a state of conspiratorial madness, to make a mockery out of scientific investigation and the expertise of so-called scientific authorities, to empower the lunatic fringe to spout unending volumes of nonsense on every subject, and to further obscure the real world of geopolitical intrigue and the machinations of the American deep state. All of which, by the way, makes it more difficult to know the truth or to engage in meaningful action.

    Yeah, thanks a lot for that, asshole.

    9/11 “Truth” is a dark locus of superstition and anarchy. It is not a means to anything; it is rather a symptom of an age that is already unraveling. Like Albigensianism, it is a sort of widespread heresy against the natural order. Like Liberalism of every description, it is vanity and concupiscence wearing a mask of righteousness. It bodes ill for the peace of the world that such beliefs are able to take root and spread. It shows the vast degree to which millions of our fellow men are insensible of living in a polity and are unfit for the duties of civic life. It is, finally, the mirror image of the neoconservative hypocrisy it claims to despise—the same sentiments with the opposite sign.

    Read More
  16. One of my fav 9/11 lies is the one told about Flight 93 that got shot down in Shanksville, PA. Remember, we were told that there wasn’t any jet debris left because the ground had liquefied and swallowed the plane up?
    200,000 pounds of plane and passengers disappeared into the Earth?

    Another amazing bending of the rules of physical science, which seemed to be perverted on that day and only on that day!

    Joking aside, we don’t have another 15 years to keep exposing the LIES about 9/11, since the real perps are well aware the truth is being outed.
    But we’re dealing with some world-class psychos who will do anything, even starting WW III and turning the Earth into radioactive rubble to avoid punishment.

    https://wikispooks.com/wiki/9-11/Israel_did_it

    Read More
  17. Like JFK assassination and Holocaust, the world will never find the truth behind 9/11 or 7/7 because that would turn the West against the Zionist entity.

    On September 11, 2001 – American Jewish billionaire Ronald Owen Perelman, 73, has announced to donate $75 million to build an Art Center at the Ground Zero for Jewish performers and Jewish Film Festivals. It’s expected to open to public in 2020.

    The Jewish Art Center will be part of the so-called One Trade Center proposed by the Jewish architect Daniel Libeskind in 2003.

    Hollywood Jewish actress and singer Barbra Streisand has agreed to act as Chairwoman of the Jewish Art Center project. Barbra Streisand was one of Canada’s most popular former prime minister Pierre Trudeau’s women.

    In 2010, several Jewish and Zionist Christian groups ran a vicious campaign against a the proposed Cordoba House – an Islamic center comprising of library, Qur’anic Museum and space for daily prayers – two blocks away from the Ground Zero.

    In 2013, Israel opened its 9/11 Memorial in Jerusalem. It was built by the Jewish National Fund, which funds the illegal Jewish settlements.

    Lt. Gen. Hamid Gul, former head of Pakistan’s intelligence agency, ISI, in an interview he gave to UPI’s Arnaud de Borchgrave on Septemper 26, 2001 said that 9/11 was an ‘inside job’ carried out with the help of Israeli Mossad (

    https://rehmat1.com/2016/09/10/jewish-art-center-at-ground-zero/

    Read More
  18. @Alfa158
    I've only read one attempt to explain that. The explanation was that WTC 7 was actually the real target, the rest of the 9/11 attack was just a misdirection. The CIA/FBI/DOD etc had the records on their Kennedy assassination operations stored in a vault under WTC 7 and were worried the information might be leaked so they decided that instead of just shredding the stuff they would incinerate the whole building, and in turn to cover that up, they also blew up the two main towers, the Pentagon, and tried to blow up the White House as a distraction.
    The story was so outlandish though that I think it was just someone trying to discredit the 9/11 truth movement.
    Maybe someone can chime in with a credible explanation.

    By hypothesis, let us assume the events were as the Truthers assert. As I am not competent to address the science addressing the event, as I know that I do not know much, I must put the issue in the Pending tray. . . forever. I do ask who is the cui bono? If the Deep State did it, why did they do it? What is the bonum that is sought?

    IMO, that unanswered question should be the starting point of one’s thinking about it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jacques Sheete

    What is the bonum that is sought?
     
    There is one major possibility with several other bonuses attached.

    The "biggie" is that it motivated people to accept the bogus war on terror and "justified" attacking people all over the world. It doesn't take much to guess who would benefit from that.

    It fulfilled the wish, described in the PNAC document, that there would be another Pearl Harbor. Who could have bennied from that?


    Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.

    PNAC document, page 51:

    http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
     

    There were secondary bonuses such as cleaning up the site, rebuilding contracts (no doubt inflated), the ability to give the militarized police state a boost (e.g., increased "security" with body scanners at airports ), and who knows what else.

    I imagine that one would have to be pretty deviant himself to even guess at the other bennies involved.

    , @Tom Welsh
    If you had read and understood the article, you would have noticed that The Saker specifically addressed and dealt with that question. As he explained, that is not how science (or any serious investigation) is done. If you find that a building collapsed in free fall, and it is known that an aircraft crashing into a building cannot cause that effect, you then need to look for the real reason the building collapsed.

    Asking "cui bono?" is reasonable, but the fact that you cannot (yet) answer that question most certainly does not means that you must accept the official story - which is known to be incompatible with the laws of physics.
  19. @guest
    My question: why bother collapsing world trade center 7? People barely even noticed, nor do they much remember. Weren't the two towers and the Pentagon enough?

    Insurance money?

    Also, apparently ( don’t quote me on this), there was asbestos in the building making them obsolete and scheduled for either remediation or destruction, but who really knows?

    Read More
  20. @anonymouse
    By hypothesis, let us assume the events were as the Truthers assert. As I am not competent to address the science addressing the event, as I know that I do not know much, I must put the issue in the Pending tray. . . forever. I do ask who is the cui bono? If the Deep State did it, why did they do it? What is the bonum that is sought?

    IMO, that unanswered question should be the starting point of one's thinking about it.

    What is the bonum that is sought?

    There is one major possibility with several other bonuses attached.

    The “biggie” is that it motivated people to accept the bogus war on terror and “justified” attacking people all over the world. It doesn’t take much to guess who would benefit from that.

    It fulfilled the wish, described in the PNAC document, that there would be another Pearl Harbor. Who could have bennied from that?

    Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.

    PNAC document, page 51:

    http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

    There were secondary bonuses such as cleaning up the site, rebuilding contracts (no doubt inflated), the ability to give the militarized police state a boost (e.g., increased “security” with body scanners at airports ), and who knows what else.

    I imagine that one would have to be pretty deviant himself to even guess at the other bennies involved.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymouse
    I feat that Jacues Sheete (=as in I don't know jackshit?) is misreading bonum as bonus.
    A bonus is a supplementary bonum, not the main reason. Cops always ask cui bono? (who is it that this was a good thing for?) when working on a case. The Truthers' answer is that the perps are the jooze or the bankers or whoever. They do not identify the main bonum that made (((them))) do it.
    , @Tom Welsh
    Another excellent (and, IMHO, very plausible) motive might be simply to create a much larger market for armaments for the foreseeable future. After 15 years, the US armed forces are still using up so many bombs, rockets, etc. that the "defence" industry has plenty of big orders stacking up. If you care a lot about money, and not at all about human life, there is a very likely motive for you.
  21. restless94110 [AKA "Stephen Douglas"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    I see the Saker has been reading my comments in my interchange with WizardofOz on Linh Dinh’s post of several days ago, in which I spoke of the inverse reasoning of some who pooh pooh the “truthers,” specifically by using the example of a murder for which the police detectives cannot determine a method.

    Great work, Saker. I’m pleased to have added to your argument and to your piece.

    Read More
  22. @Le biel
    WTC 7 may have been the primary target.

    To tale that line is to spin off theory number 500 as to how it might all hang together and involve as much detailed examining of facts and reasoning as any of them. Actually it is probably versions 500 to 525 depending on what motive you attribute to alternative villains for desperàtely wanting WTC 7 down,

    Read More
  23. @Boris

    A good example of this kind of rigorous scientific analysis can be found in the paper “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe” published by the The Open Chemical Physics Journal in 2009:
     
    You mean the journal that was shut down for accepting a paper with nothing but random sentences? Quite the accomplishment.

    And the editor resigned in protest over the publication of the article in question!

    Read More
  24. @This Is Our Home
    Even Saker himself does not believe this silly article. His hyperbolic praise for a handful of weirdos is hilarious, especially his use of Wikipedia stats on world opinion, especially shame avoiding Muslim opinion, to claim some sort of traction in the US lol. What he has done is found a rich seam of loons and paranoid schizophrenics whom he has realised he can mine for cash for the rest of his life. It is the L L Ron Hubbard retirement plan.

    Not a bad guess at motive perhaps. I was disposed to “Agree” but when I tried to I got a note saying only Commenters with 10 recent published comments could use the facility.

    Very odd as I have posted dozens on this App and browser.

    Read More
  25. @Planet Albany
    Is The Saker an agent for Clinton, trying to make her opponents sound crazy?

    As good an explanation for his juvenile vapourings as any.

    Read More
    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
    The good explanation for your own illogical vapourings being intestinal gas?
  26. As i understand it the free fall is explained by the World Trade Center being designed to use asbestos. While under construction the asbestos was not used in the top of the buildings without a change in the design. Thus the heat from the fire lead to a loss of structure integrity.

    Read More
  27. @This Is Our Home
    Even Saker himself does not believe this silly article. His hyperbolic praise for a handful of weirdos is hilarious, especially his use of Wikipedia stats on world opinion, especially shame avoiding Muslim opinion, to claim some sort of traction in the US lol. What he has done is found a rich seam of loons and paranoid schizophrenics whom he has realised he can mine for cash for the rest of his life. It is the L L Ron Hubbard retirement plan.

    Hmm so what your saying is that everyone not believing the official story, or that anyone who dis-agrees with your narrow view of the facts are “weirdo’s” and you probably believe that Oswald was the shooter in the JFK killing,which of course make you post suspect to say the least as to what your true intent really is.!!!

    Read More
  28. The Saker knows a little bit about some things mostly related to Russia and can sometimes say some interesting or thought provoking things about them. But if he wants also to have enough credibility to persuade anyone of anything he thinks important he should refrain from behaving like a prevocious but itresponsible and excitable 15 year old.

    I doubt that he has himself read that wholly inconclusive piece he proffered in full from the “Open Chemical Physics Journal” but he might have saved others time that could be better spent by acknowledging that it is from one of the predatory publishers, based in Sharjah, with no proper peer review, and that charges $800 to have an article published. And isn’t the key scientist, Steven Jones of Brigham Young University until suspended, the notorious Cold Fusion fraud or nutter?

    Interesting that if one conscientiously Googles “What is active thermitic material” it is virtually all related to 9/11 though you do get a lot of sense out of the Wikipedia entry on thermite and controlled demolition of the WTC buildings. Here’s a challenge to the enthusiasts. First read and understand the Wikipedia entry then have a go at editing it to suit your narrative. And don’t give up but report your efforts and what happens to them on UR.

    As for the report by NIST which The Saker invites us to read though I doubt that he has read it all…. Saker the scientific polymath says it adds up to total BS because it admits – actually it calculates and asserts – that WTC 7′s collapse included 2.25 seconds of falling at close to free fall speed! Devastating according to the all purpose opiniator and know all.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stonehands
    There is a lot of trolling and diversion with regards to 9/11.

    What about this:

    www.globalresearch.ca/the-military-drills-of-september-11th-...
    , @ogunsiron
    Here’s a challenge to the enthusiasts. First read and understand the Wikipedia entry then have a go at editing it to suit your narrative. And don’t give up but report your efforts and what happens to them on UR.
    ----
    Editing wikipedia articles on fungus reproduction and editing articles on a politically charged topic like 9/11 are not the same.
    , @AnonAussie
    So Wizard - I presume you go with the utterly implausible official theory?
    Here it is as a reminder: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yuC_4mGTs98
  29. @Jacques Sheete

    What is the bonum that is sought?
     
    There is one major possibility with several other bonuses attached.

    The "biggie" is that it motivated people to accept the bogus war on terror and "justified" attacking people all over the world. It doesn't take much to guess who would benefit from that.

    It fulfilled the wish, described in the PNAC document, that there would be another Pearl Harbor. Who could have bennied from that?


    Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.

    PNAC document, page 51:

    http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
     

    There were secondary bonuses such as cleaning up the site, rebuilding contracts (no doubt inflated), the ability to give the militarized police state a boost (e.g., increased "security" with body scanners at airports ), and who knows what else.

    I imagine that one would have to be pretty deviant himself to even guess at the other bennies involved.

    I feat that Jacues Sheete (=as in I don’t know jackshit?) is misreading bonum as bonus.
    A bonus is a supplementary bonum, not the main reason. Cops always ask cui bono? (who is it that this was a good thing for?) when working on a case. The Truthers’ answer is that the perps are the jooze or the bankers or whoever. They do not identify the main bonum that made (((them))) do it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jacques Sheete
    Uh, FYI, all the "bon" words are related and I was playing around with them.

    Look up the Latin word, "bona" meaning "good" and get someone to 'splain it to yi cuz it's apparent you don't know JS.
  30. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Groovy Battle for Blair Mountain"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    9/11 was completely avoidable and here is how:

    If the 1965 Immigration Reform Act not been passed….

    If a National Origins Immigration Policy had been implemented that completely excluded all Muslims…

    1+1=2 easy…

    So why are Muslims being imported into the US?

    Answer:So they can vote f…..g Whitey into a racial minority on Nov 8 2016…pull the lever down for the old farting hairy Lesbian…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rehmat
    Muslims - Vote for WHO?

    There are between 7 to 9 million Muslims in United States with only two Afro-American convert Congressmen. Contrary to that, there are less than five million Jews in the US with 10 Senators and 28 Congressmen - while 90% of the 535-member Congress backing the Zionist regime.

    “I want to tell you something very clear, don’t worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people control America, and the Americans know it,” – Ariel Sharon, Israeli prime minister to Shimon Peres, October 3, 2001- reported on Kol Yisrael radio.

    “Arabs will get their freedom only when the Americans get theirs (from Israel Lobby),” – professor Edward Said.

    “The Zionist power configuration’s primary loyalty is to the state of Israel and its policy is designed to colonize the US Congress – to the benefit of ‘mother country’ – Israel,” – professor James Petras.

    Can you dig it dude?

    https://rehmat1.com/2008/08/30/uncle-sam-israeli-colony/
  31. @Tom Welsh
    In addition to the well-known psychological syndromes the Saker mentions, I would like to highlight one more explanation for the continued general acceptance of the official story. In his famous 1962 book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions", Thomas S Kuhn explains that even scientists - let alone lay people - understand the world mostly in terms of "stories", for which he used the technical term "paradigms". One of the most important conclusions to which he came was that the vast majority of scientists will never give up even the most discredited and unsatisfactory paradigm - until they have a clearly better one to replace it. As Max Planck so pithily put it, "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it".

    In the case of 9/11, the relevance of this principle is rather obvious. The vast majority of American citizens, and the ordinary public in other countries, wholly lacks the keenness of mind and habitual scepticism of the scientist - and even many scientists still accept the official story about 9/11. There is a natural reluctance to believe that one's government is not only lying through its teeth, but has deliberately blown up some of the most prominent buildings in the country, killing nearly 3,000 people in the process. But above and beyond this, most people will never accept that the official story is a pack of lies until they hear an alternative story that clearly and obviously makes better sense to them.

    Of course the Deep State is fully aware of this, and even counted on it. Ever since WW1, US governments have been duping the public with increasingly ambitious propaganda. By the 21st century, they were supremely confident in their abilities - and rightly so. With nearly the whole of the mass media on their side, there is no way that any significant proportion of citizens will ever be persuaded to believe that the official story is untrue.

    I’ve long been an admirer of Thomas Kuhn’s.

    Indeed, humans live a narrative that continuously tells them who they are, the world they live in, and their and everybody/everything else’s place in it.
    I’ve often thought that the “truther” versions of 9/11 don’t get traction not because they don”t make physical sense, but precisely because they do. I’ve watched competent professionals, confronted with mathematical proof (that they sometimes worked out for themselves), look from side to side in obvious discomfort and then reject it wholesale using some semi-religious psycho-babble argument like “Nobody could be that evil”….

    Why?
    Well, a part of the answer is that to acknowledge the facts is to also face an life changing decision. That is, whether one is OK with the fact that one’s “betters” just murdered 3000 of your compatriots with absolute impunity, or not.
    If not, a moral imperative stares one in the face. One has to go Che Guevara and fight this evil with every fibre of his being, at the cost of one’s career, home, (probably) family and any hopes & dreams one may have had for a comfortable, long life.
    The shame of shirking the moral imperative, that one is OK with one’s “betters” murdering how ever many they like of ones compatriots, is to admit to cowardice and henceforth to live an unprincipled, grovelling existence at the whim of those “betters”.

    Nobody will thank the truther for putting them in that position. And, the smarter they are the worse they react. So, their internal narratives build defences in an earnest desperation, scorning the truth they themselves worked out and casting all other plain facts out the window. No obfuscatory, prevaricating, question-begging, word-mincing tactic will go untried as the lifelong narrative desperately tries to save itself.

    That’s humans for ya, and the “betters” know it well. That’s how they got to be betters.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Tom Welsh
    'I’ve watched competent professionals, confronted with mathematical proof (that they sometimes worked out for themselves), look from side to side in obvious discomfort and then reject it wholesale...'

    http://xkcd.com/1731/
    , @Tom Welsh
    "Nobody will thank the truther for putting them in that position. And, the smarter they are the worse they react".

    And those are exactly the same people who, when talk of the Holocaust comes up, ask earnestly, "But why did ordinary German citizens allow all this wickedness to go on? Surely they had to have known what was happening?"
    , @Intelligent Dasein
    Your comment, gold box and all, is exactly the kind of oblivious, preachy, self-righteous bullshit that proves what the Truthers are really all about---vanity and anarchy. Truther's beliefs are a method of self-aggrandizement that allows them to feel superior to the rest of the world; that is to say, to the great unwashed masses whom they accuse of believing "the official version," regardless of what such people actually believe or whether they even exist (for the facts do not matter; it's all about the melodrama with you, anyway), and whom you libel as cowards, ignorant, government shills, "sheeple," and other choice terms from your little catalog of epithets.

    This act of deprecation is your real objective. It provides the little power-fixes, little dopamine rushes, that allow you to feel oh-so dominant and in-the-know. "Look how much better I am than all these ignorant sheeple," you say to yourself. It also provides you with every excuse you need to ignore your civic responsibilities and mock society's institutions whenever doing so would be convenient for you. After all, society is unjust and all those institutions are just serving the deep state and shilling for the "official version." You, sir, have found a civic loophole. You get to enjoy the benefits of living in the commonwealth while denigrating and flouting it at the same time. You're just a Jacobin, a Bolshevik, another liberal revolutionary cloaked in a different ideology.

    But let's look at your specific claim the majority of people simply cannot accept "what really happened" on 9/11 because that would entail the psychologically impossible task of acknowledging that---gasp!---their own government murdered 3,000 people in a false flag incident that set the backdrop for the roll-out of the War on Terror.

    What kind of a mouth-breathing idiot do you have to be to make such a claim? It simply doesn't make any sense. Even a cursory glance at history reveals that governments have been slaughtering people on a large scale, for all kinds of reasons, since the very beginning of time, and yet that fact seems to have been acknowledged without any attendant epidemic of cognitive dissonance. Why should it be any more difficult to believe that our government would kill 3000 Americans in our own time if it suited its purposes? Given the fact that the US deep state is one of the most corrupt, feckless, and downright byzantine organizations to ever exist, I have no trouble at all believing such a thing, except for the minor fact that it did not happen. I certainly am not impeded by any unrealistic, juvenile hangups regarding the sanctity of the federal government.

    But I suspect that you are. I suspect that you think , somewhere deep inside, that whatever powers ought to be governing the affairs of men---be it the Constitution "as written," or some sort of Randian libertarian fantasy---really are pure and perfect as the driven snow, and therefore it required an act of unsurpassed dastardliness to obscure them: enter 9/11 "Truth." I suspect that you think yourself to be quite above reproach, and that your adherence to 9/11 "Truth" gives you a sense of permanent absolution from all past and future guilt. And I further suspect that the nefarious plots and subterfuges you project upon The Powers That Be are precisely the sort of acts you yourself would commit if you held their high station. Your feigned moral indignation at them is really just a histrionic facade, as moral indignation always is. You don't hate them. You don't even really fear them. You covet them. Your only outrage arises from the fact that someone else got to do them and you did not. Therefore belief in "Truth" is an existential necessity of yours. It is the sacrament by which you hypostatically unite yourself with everything you desire. All thought is but the mirror image of the thinker.

    But in reality it is all a lie. 9/11 was not a false flag. It really was a terrorist attack, the fact that the government responded with a hamfisted acceleration of the security state, and by bombing the Middle East into a quagmire, notwithstanding.
    , @edNels


    Makes sense.

    Nobody will thank the truth…]
     
    (truthers).

    […their internal narratives build defences in an earnest desperation, scorning the truth they themselves worked out and casting all other plain facts out…]
     
    Denial, demonstrated in the Classic electrified sheep experiment in psychology 1a: when faced with no option other than to be shocked from the floor in a cage, the sheep gives up on fighting, and begins to graze on imaginary grass, (in an imaginary… pastoral scene,?) ah how tranquil…
    , @Miro23
    "If not, a moral imperative stares one in the face. One has to go Che Guevara and fight this evil with every fibre of his being, at the cost of one’s career, home, (probably) family and any hopes & dreams one may have had for a comfortable, long life."

    You're probably right there, and this is the problem. For example a big majority of structural engineers know exactly what happened to WTC7 but only a small percentage are willing to stand up and say it.

    However, if and when the truth about WTC7 becomes mainstream, then they'll all say that it was obvious and they knew all along.
    , @Rurik
    Wow, what a doubleplus good comment!

    very insightful, and scary true

    to acknowledge the facts is to also face an life changing decision. That is, whether one is OK with the fact that one’s “betters” just murdered 3000 of your compatriots with absolute impunity, or not.
    If not, a moral imperative stares one in the face. One has to go Che Guevara and fight this evil with every fibre of his being
     
    but I wish people understood that this is not necessarily true. One doesn't have to "hoist the black flag and begin slitting throats", even if you're tempted. Rather all anyone would do is accept the truth, and then go from there. If the subject comes up, tell people of your skepticism, if they ask further, ask them if they even know about Building Seven, and then go from there. As unpalatable as this whole thing is, the truth is persistent, simply because it is the truth.

    You don't have to jeopardize your career or reputation, all you might want to do is visit websites (like the UR) and use simple, quiet reason and links to videos and other proof of what happened, and then you might even get to have some fun when you find a troll or two- who you discover is trying to keep the lies (and the wars and the 'special relationship') from foundering, and then, by all means, hoist the black flag, and have some fun!
  32. So the story goes that 19 hijackers (mostly Saudi) carried out the 9/11 attacks. As a result the US invaded Afghanistan, then Iraq.
    As Gary Johnson recently demonstrated, American don’t know geography. They don’t have a clue!

    Read More
  33. @Robert Magill
    Truthers are very good at explaining what didn't happen but a little light 'splainin what did. Why the towers? Perhaps because they are so symbolic of our collective puissance. Why not nuke or chemical plants instead which would have caused real harm not symbolic taunting? Key word taunting. It worked. Still does. We took the bait and lost our minds and our pocketbooks.

    The answer to your question should be obvious. The purpose of a false-flag is not to destroy or militarily cripple the country; rather, it is done for the sake of furnishing that country with a pretext for war.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Robert Magill

    The answer to your question should be obvious. The purpose of a false-flag is not to destroy or militarily cripple the country; rather, it is done for the sake of furnishing that country with a pretext for war.
     
    Why must it be a false flag? Maybe those fifteen guys figured it out too. Regular people are sometimes capable of incredible events.
  34. I wonder what is Saker’s position on “Russian apartment bombings” two years before 9/11?

    “The blasts hit Buynaksk on 4 September, Moscow on 9 September and 13 September and Volgodonsk on 16 September. A similar explosive device was found and defused in an apartment block in the Russian city of Ryazan on 22 September.”

    “Parliament member Yuri Shchekochikhin filed two motions for a parliamentary investigation of the events, but the motions were rejected by the Russian Duma in March 2000. An independent public commission to investigate the bombings was chaired by Duma deputy Sergei Kovalev. The commission was rendered ineffective because of government refusal to respond to its inquiries. Two key members of the Kovalev Commission, Sergei Yushenkov and Yuri Shchekochikhin, have since died in apparent assassinations. The Commission’s lawyer Mikhail Trepashkin was arrested.”

    I think it is a common belief in Russia that they were false flags organized by FSB to give Putin pretext for the 2nd war in Chechnya. Just like 9/11 gave Bush II the 2nd war in Iraq.

    Do FSB, Mossad and CIA exchange notes and know how?

    Read More
  35. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Groovy Battle for Blair Mountain"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Anonymous
    The purported cell phone calls made from the hijacked planes on 9/11 have been proven to have been impossible:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPG6WURLC7Y

    Anon

    The family of the victims on those three passenger jets refute that claim of yours and Professor Robert Ray Griffith. You are a vile-evil-psychopath with a very nasty political agenda

    The originator of this lie is of course Philosophy Professor Robert Ray Griffith who wrote a book calling for solidarity with Muslim “American” Muslims and 9/11 Truthers.

    Just a reminder:recently a five year old Native Born White American Child was raped and urinated on by three young Muslim Legal Immigrant Males in Idaho. I blame the 9/11 Truthers for this monumental crime against this Native Born White American Female Child.

    Richard Spencer-Jared Taylor-Peter Brimelow should have talked about nothing else but the brutal gang rape of this Native Born White American Child in Idaho during their Alt Right Press Conference.

    Spencer-Taylor-Brimelow…the three CUCKS of the Alt Right did lectured us about 1)Asians are smarter than White Americans..2)and how much they admired the (((neocons))) during thier Alt Right comming out party.

    Time to be Alt Alt Right…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    The purported cell phone calls made from the hijacked planes on 9/11 would not have been possible. The video posted above shows an experiment which demonstrates that cell phone calls would not have been possible.

    Furthermore, as this article from December of 2004 explains, it was generally acknowledged and understood, including by the FCC, that cell phone calls from planes before 2004 were not possible:

    "Can you hear me on a 747? / FCC set to consider in-flight cell phones"

    San Francisco Chronicle December 15th 2004.

    http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Can-you-hear-me-on-a-747-FCC-set-to-consider-2663745.php

    “Today’s vote by the FCC is intended to address whether technology has improved to the extent that cell phone calls now are possible above 10,000 feet — they weren’t in the past — and whether they’d mess up ground- based communications."
     
  36. 1) The US “deep state” is not affected by changes in the White House

    In this case, I’d have to disagree. When I examine the bizarre events of the 2000 election in hindsight, it seems likely that someone was absolutely determined to get Bush into the White House at all costs, probably so that Cheney and Rumsfeld could appoint all the neocons to neutralize the Pentagon and the CIA, leaving the country ripe for attack.

    Of course, the stakes are sky-high: if 9/11 was an inside job, then the US government is not only absolutely illegitimate, it is in fact an occupation government controlled by either foreign elements, or traitors or both.

    I strongly agree with this statement. Mossad did 9/11: https://wikispooks.com/wiki/9-11/Israel_did_it

    Yes, that is, indeed, a very painful realization: the American Dream is just that – a dream.

    It’s like George Carlin said: “The reason they call it the American Dream is because you have to be asleep to believe it.”

    In spite of it all, the 9/11 Truth movement has had a huge victory: it has basically forced the US government to admit that explosives were used to bring down WTC7!

    The owner of the WTC, Larry Silverstein, admitted that he deliberately brought down building 7 through controlled demolition, even though the exact justification he offered is implausible: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jPzAakHPpk&feature=youtu.be

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus


    Yes, that is, indeed, a very painful realization: the American Dream is just that – a dream.
     

     
    small point in your overall pic, Saker, but annoying as hell:

    The American Dream is a trope invented by Jews & Hollywood, or maybe Jews in the Bernays influenced PR world. take a look at Neal Gabler's An Empire of Their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood

    coordinate the rise of holocaustism with the increase in the use of the term, American dream
    https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=american+dream&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Camerican%20dream%3B%2Cc0

    The American Dream meme is not as American as apple pie, it's a relatively recent invention and a vacuous one at that. It functions to keep Americans from taking action upon confronting the distortions Erebus spelled out in #34 (great comment, btw).

    Jefferson, Madison, Washington, Adams, Franklin did not "pledge their lives, their fortune, their sacred honor" for the American Dream.
  37. @anonymouse
    By hypothesis, let us assume the events were as the Truthers assert. As I am not competent to address the science addressing the event, as I know that I do not know much, I must put the issue in the Pending tray. . . forever. I do ask who is the cui bono? If the Deep State did it, why did they do it? What is the bonum that is sought?

    IMO, that unanswered question should be the starting point of one's thinking about it.

    If you had read and understood the article, you would have noticed that The Saker specifically addressed and dealt with that question. As he explained, that is not how science (or any serious investigation) is done. If you find that a building collapsed in free fall, and it is known that an aircraft crashing into a building cannot cause that effect, you then need to look for the real reason the building collapsed.

    Asking “cui bono?” is reasonable, but the fact that you cannot (yet) answer that question most certainly does not means that you must accept the official story – which is known to be incompatible with the laws of physics.

    Read More
  38. @Jacques Sheete

    What is the bonum that is sought?
     
    There is one major possibility with several other bonuses attached.

    The "biggie" is that it motivated people to accept the bogus war on terror and "justified" attacking people all over the world. It doesn't take much to guess who would benefit from that.

    It fulfilled the wish, described in the PNAC document, that there would be another Pearl Harbor. Who could have bennied from that?


    Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.

    PNAC document, page 51:

    http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
     

    There were secondary bonuses such as cleaning up the site, rebuilding contracts (no doubt inflated), the ability to give the militarized police state a boost (e.g., increased "security" with body scanners at airports ), and who knows what else.

    I imagine that one would have to be pretty deviant himself to even guess at the other bennies involved.

    Another excellent (and, IMHO, very plausible) motive might be simply to create a much larger market for armaments for the foreseeable future. After 15 years, the US armed forces are still using up so many bombs, rockets, etc. that the “defence” industry has plenty of big orders stacking up. If you care a lot about money, and not at all about human life, there is a very likely motive for you.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymouse
    Walsh is suggesting that rich conspirators (=the bankers or the jooze or the Dark State, your choice) conspired to become richer whilst risking being executed for mass murder. That's it? The lure of lucre? That seems to be ridiculous on the face of it. In paradigm cases of cui bono, as when Mr. Smith murders Mrs. Smith for one or more specific good reasons, cops ask themselves "who benefited from the act?" and that's the first person they look for. The Truthers can't nail the act on anyone in particular and they can't supply a proximate reason to do it. If you start with the assumption that everything is a conspiracy, that we all live, like Jim Carey, in The Truman Show, then 9/11 was a conspiracy. If not, not.
  39. @Erebus
    I've long been an admirer of Thomas Kuhn's.

    Indeed, humans live a narrative that continuously tells them who they are, the world they live in, and their and everybody/everything else's place in it.
    I've often thought that the "truther" versions of 9/11 don't get traction not because they don''t make physical sense, but precisely because they do. I've watched competent professionals, confronted with mathematical proof (that they sometimes worked out for themselves), look from side to side in obvious discomfort and then reject it wholesale using some semi-religious psycho-babble argument like "Nobody could be that evil"....

    Why?
    Well, a part of the answer is that to acknowledge the facts is to also face an life changing decision. That is, whether one is OK with the fact that one's "betters" just murdered 3000 of your compatriots with absolute impunity, or not.
    If not, a moral imperative stares one in the face. One has to go Che Guevara and fight this evil with every fibre of his being, at the cost of one's career, home, (probably) family and any hopes & dreams one may have had for a comfortable, long life.
    The shame of shirking the moral imperative, that one is OK with one's "betters" murdering how ever many they like of ones compatriots, is to admit to cowardice and henceforth to live an unprincipled, grovelling existence at the whim of those "betters".

    Nobody will thank the truther for putting them in that position. And, the smarter they are the worse they react. So, their internal narratives build defences in an earnest desperation, scorning the truth they themselves worked out and casting all other plain facts out the window. No obfuscatory, prevaricating, question-begging, word-mincing tactic will go untried as the lifelong narrative desperately tries to save itself.

    That's humans for ya, and the "betters" know it well. That's how they got to be betters.

    ‘I’ve watched competent professionals, confronted with mathematical proof (that they sometimes worked out for themselves), look from side to side in obvious discomfort and then reject it wholesale…’

    http://xkcd.com/1731/

    Read More
  40. The truthers have accomplished nothing. The perpetrators are still at large and still in charge.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Tom Welsh
    They have done what they could. Not always is it possible (immediately, at any rate) to bring down a treasonous, murderous government and punish those responsible. More often, it is the government that asserts its monopoly on violence to punish those who have told the truth about it (sound familiar?)

    Nevertheless, publishing the truth for those who will hear it is a moral act (and a brave one). We should not refrain from doing what is right just because we cannot be sure it will immediately lead to complete success. You can never tell when a good action, or a piece of courageous truth-telling, may start a big crack in the fabric of an evil system.

    That's certainly the view that people like Alexander Solzhenitsyn took.
  41. @Erebus
    I've long been an admirer of Thomas Kuhn's.

    Indeed, humans live a narrative that continuously tells them who they are, the world they live in, and their and everybody/everything else's place in it.
    I've often thought that the "truther" versions of 9/11 don't get traction not because they don''t make physical sense, but precisely because they do. I've watched competent professionals, confronted with mathematical proof (that they sometimes worked out for themselves), look from side to side in obvious discomfort and then reject it wholesale using some semi-religious psycho-babble argument like "Nobody could be that evil"....

    Why?
    Well, a part of the answer is that to acknowledge the facts is to also face an life changing decision. That is, whether one is OK with the fact that one's "betters" just murdered 3000 of your compatriots with absolute impunity, or not.
    If not, a moral imperative stares one in the face. One has to go Che Guevara and fight this evil with every fibre of his being, at the cost of one's career, home, (probably) family and any hopes & dreams one may have had for a comfortable, long life.
    The shame of shirking the moral imperative, that one is OK with one's "betters" murdering how ever many they like of ones compatriots, is to admit to cowardice and henceforth to live an unprincipled, grovelling existence at the whim of those "betters".

    Nobody will thank the truther for putting them in that position. And, the smarter they are the worse they react. So, their internal narratives build defences in an earnest desperation, scorning the truth they themselves worked out and casting all other plain facts out the window. No obfuscatory, prevaricating, question-begging, word-mincing tactic will go untried as the lifelong narrative desperately tries to save itself.

    That's humans for ya, and the "betters" know it well. That's how they got to be betters.

    “Nobody will thank the truther for putting them in that position. And, the smarter they are the worse they react”.

    And those are exactly the same people who, when talk of the Holocaust comes up, ask earnestly, “But why did ordinary German citizens allow all this wickedness to go on? Surely they had to have known what was happening?”

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus

    And those are exactly the same people who, when talk of the Holocaust comes up, ask earnestly, “But why did ordinary German citizens allow all this wickedness to go on? Surely they had to have known what was happening?”
     
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0_BZphQ7Qo

    Monika Schaefer, German-Canadian

    "Germans were made to be ashamed of their culture . . .

    1:44: "Many years ago I reproached my mother. You see, I had been thoroughly indoctrinated -- we all were -- the stories seemed to be all around us, in school, in television, in the very air. And the evilness of Adolf Hitler was deep and diabolic as imaginable.

    I said to my mother, "Why didn't you, your friends, your family -- Why didn't you DO something to stop these bad things from happening. . . . The death camps . . . You should have done something; you must have known. . . ."

    2:25 She listened. [Then] very quietly she said, "We didn't know about any of that. We just did not know."

    2:43: Well, now I know why she did not know: It is because these things did not happen."
    , @Rurik

    “But why did ordinary German citizens allow all this wickedness to go on? Surely they had to have known what was happening?”
     
    also there is the mantra "don't ask me to cry for those German civilians who were burned up in the cities or murdered after the war was over by the millions. They had it coming! For allowing their government to wage aggressive wars all over the place!!!
  42. @WorkingClass
    The truthers have accomplished nothing. The perpetrators are still at large and still in charge.

    They have done what they could. Not always is it possible (immediately, at any rate) to bring down a treasonous, murderous government and punish those responsible. More often, it is the government that asserts its monopoly on violence to punish those who have told the truth about it (sound familiar?)

    Nevertheless, publishing the truth for those who will hear it is a moral act (and a brave one). We should not refrain from doing what is right just because we cannot be sure it will immediately lead to complete success. You can never tell when a good action, or a piece of courageous truth-telling, may start a big crack in the fabric of an evil system.

    That’s certainly the view that people like Alexander Solzhenitsyn took.

    Read More
    • Replies: @WorkingClass
    I did not speak against truth or truthers. The first time I saw the towers come down on television I knew they were brought down by controlled demolition. I did not need a movement and fifteen years to know that the official story is a lie. I know what is not true. I am still waiting to know what is true. I would especially like to know the names of Americans who participated in the conspiracy and those who continue to maintain the cover up.
    , @Incitatus
    The case for exposing those criminally responsible on 9/11 has always been clear. The charge, using the Administration’s own account, is Gross Negligence and criminal Dereliction of Duty (if not Treason). They were warned repeatedly from January 2001. They chose inaction. Why weren’t they indicted?

    Add Crimes Against Peace and Launching Aggressive War for Iraq March 2003. Other crimes (perjury, incitement, torture, kidnapping, profiteering, etc) beg for justice.

    Ignoring the possible in favor of an elusive perfect likely leads nowhere.
    , @Rurik

    You can never tell when a good action, or a piece of courageous truth-telling, may start a big crack in the fabric of an evil system.

    That’s certainly the view that people like Alexander Solzhenitsyn took.
     
    agree
  43. More masturbatory civilizational masochism.

    The 9/11 attacks were carried out by agents of Al Qaeda, as part of the ongoing war against the West and other non-Muslims that has been a consistent feature of Jihadist Islamist ideology for 1400 years.

    One does not need elaborate conspiracies to explain why Muslim emirates and empires enslaved an estimated 50 million Europeans in the past, nor why currently, just to cite one of many worldwide examples, militant Islamists from the minority in Southern Thailand behead and display the mutilated bodies of Buddhist priests. 9/11 is a perfect fit to this pattern and requires no further explanation as well.

    All of these various idiots who seek to blame everyone but Al Qaeda for 9/11 are nothing more than civilizational cuckholds for Jihadist Islamism and the destruction of the West at its hands. Unfortunately the nature of the internet vastly oversamples the popularity of such viewpoints, which outside of majority-Muslim countries and Muslim communities within Western countries is limited to a truly small fringe.

    Read More
    • Replies: @5371
    A word conspicuously absent from this comment by hasbara operative "biz" is "Saudi".
  44. @Seamus Padraig
    The answer to your question should be obvious. The purpose of a false-flag is not to destroy or militarily cripple the country; rather, it is done for the sake of furnishing that country with a pretext for war.

    The answer to your question should be obvious. The purpose of a false-flag is not to destroy or militarily cripple the country; rather, it is done for the sake of furnishing that country with a pretext for war.

    Why must it be a false flag? Maybe those fifteen guys figured it out too. Regular people are sometimes capable of incredible events.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seamus Padraig

    Maybe those fifteen guys figured it out too.
     
    Figured out what?

    Regular people are sometimes capable of incredible events.
     
    I'm not denying that the hijackers did their part. But as a truther, I insist that their actions alone, with no help from the inside, would not have been sufficient to bring down 3 WTC buildings with 2 airplanes.
  45. @Seamus Padraig

    1) The US “deep state” is not affected by changes in the White House

     

    In this case, I'd have to disagree. When I examine the bizarre events of the 2000 election in hindsight, it seems likely that someone was absolutely determined to get Bush into the White House at all costs, probably so that Cheney and Rumsfeld could appoint all the neocons to neutralize the Pentagon and the CIA, leaving the country ripe for attack.

    Of course, the stakes are sky-high: if 9/11 was an inside job, then the US government is not only absolutely illegitimate, it is in fact an occupation government controlled by either foreign elements, or traitors or both.
     
    I strongly agree with this statement. Mossad did 9/11: https://wikispooks.com/wiki/9-11/Israel_did_it

    Yes, that is, indeed, a very painful realization: the American Dream is just that – a dream.
     
    It's like George Carlin said: "The reason they call it the American Dream is because you have to be asleep to believe it."

    In spite of it all, the 9/11 Truth movement has had a huge victory: it has basically forced the US government to admit that explosives were used to bring down WTC7!
     
    The owner of the WTC, Larry Silverstein, admitted that he deliberately brought down building 7 through controlled demolition, even though the exact justification he offered is implausible: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jPzAakHPpk&feature=youtu.be

    Yes, that is, indeed, a very painful realization: the American Dream is just that – a dream.

    small point in your overall pic, Saker, but annoying as hell:

    The American Dream is a trope invented by Jews & Hollywood, or maybe Jews in the Bernays influenced PR world. take a look at Neal Gabler’s An Empire of Their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood

    coordinate the rise of holocaustism with the increase in the use of the term, American dream

    https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=american+dream&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Camerican%20dream%3B%2Cc0

    The American Dream meme is not as American as apple pie, it’s a relatively recent invention and a vacuous one at that. It functions to keep Americans from taking action upon confronting the distortions Erebus spelled out in #34 (great comment, btw).

    Jefferson, Madison, Washington, Adams, Franklin did not “pledge their lives, their fortune, their sacred honor” for the American Dream.

    Read More
  46. @Erebus
    I've long been an admirer of Thomas Kuhn's.

    Indeed, humans live a narrative that continuously tells them who they are, the world they live in, and their and everybody/everything else's place in it.
    I've often thought that the "truther" versions of 9/11 don't get traction not because they don''t make physical sense, but precisely because they do. I've watched competent professionals, confronted with mathematical proof (that they sometimes worked out for themselves), look from side to side in obvious discomfort and then reject it wholesale using some semi-religious psycho-babble argument like "Nobody could be that evil"....

    Why?
    Well, a part of the answer is that to acknowledge the facts is to also face an life changing decision. That is, whether one is OK with the fact that one's "betters" just murdered 3000 of your compatriots with absolute impunity, or not.
    If not, a moral imperative stares one in the face. One has to go Che Guevara and fight this evil with every fibre of his being, at the cost of one's career, home, (probably) family and any hopes & dreams one may have had for a comfortable, long life.
    The shame of shirking the moral imperative, that one is OK with one's "betters" murdering how ever many they like of ones compatriots, is to admit to cowardice and henceforth to live an unprincipled, grovelling existence at the whim of those "betters".

    Nobody will thank the truther for putting them in that position. And, the smarter they are the worse they react. So, their internal narratives build defences in an earnest desperation, scorning the truth they themselves worked out and casting all other plain facts out the window. No obfuscatory, prevaricating, question-begging, word-mincing tactic will go untried as the lifelong narrative desperately tries to save itself.

    That's humans for ya, and the "betters" know it well. That's how they got to be betters.

    Your comment, gold box and all, is exactly the kind of oblivious, preachy, self-righteous bullshit that proves what the Truthers are really all about—vanity and anarchy. Truther’s beliefs are a method of self-aggrandizement that allows them to feel superior to the rest of the world; that is to say, to the great unwashed masses whom they accuse of believing “the official version,” regardless of what such people actually believe or whether they even exist (for the facts do not matter; it’s all about the melodrama with you, anyway), and whom you libel as cowards, ignorant, government shills, “sheeple,” and other choice terms from your little catalog of epithets.

    This act of deprecation is your real objective. It provides the little power-fixes, little dopamine rushes, that allow you to feel oh-so dominant and in-the-know. “Look how much better I am than all these ignorant sheeple,” you say to yourself. It also provides you with every excuse you need to ignore your civic responsibilities and mock society’s institutions whenever doing so would be convenient for you. After all, society is unjust and all those institutions are just serving the deep state and shilling for the “official version.” You, sir, have found a civic loophole. You get to enjoy the benefits of living in the commonwealth while denigrating and flouting it at the same time. You’re just a Jacobin, a Bolshevik, another liberal revolutionary cloaked in a different ideology.

    But let’s look at your specific claim the majority of people simply cannot accept “what really happened” on 9/11 because that would entail the psychologically impossible task of acknowledging that—gasp!—their own government murdered 3,000 people in a false flag incident that set the backdrop for the roll-out of the War on Terror.

    What kind of a mouth-breathing idiot do you have to be to make such a claim? It simply doesn’t make any sense. Even a cursory glance at history reveals that governments have been slaughtering people on a large scale, for all kinds of reasons, since the very beginning of time, and yet that fact seems to have been acknowledged without any attendant epidemic of cognitive dissonance. Why should it be any more difficult to believe that our government would kill 3000 Americans in our own time if it suited its purposes? Given the fact that the US deep state is one of the most corrupt, feckless, and downright byzantine organizations to ever exist, I have no trouble at all believing such a thing, except for the minor fact that it did not happen. I certainly am not impeded by any unrealistic, juvenile hangups regarding the sanctity of the federal government.

    But I suspect that you are. I suspect that you think , somewhere deep inside, that whatever powers ought to be governing the affairs of men—be it the Constitution “as written,” or some sort of Randian libertarian fantasy—really are pure and perfect as the driven snow, and therefore it required an act of unsurpassed dastardliness to obscure them: enter 9/11 “Truth.” I suspect that you think yourself to be quite above reproach, and that your adherence to 9/11 “Truth” gives you a sense of permanent absolution from all past and future guilt. And I further suspect that the nefarious plots and subterfuges you project upon The Powers That Be are precisely the sort of acts you yourself would commit if you held their high station. Your feigned moral indignation at them is really just a histrionic facade, as moral indignation always is. You don’t hate them. You don’t even really fear them. You covet them. Your only outrage arises from the fact that someone else got to do them and you did not. Therefore belief in “Truth” is an existential necessity of yours. It is the sacrament by which you hypostatically unite yourself with everything you desire. All thought is but the mirror image of the thinker.

    But in reality it is all a lie. 9/11 was not a false flag. It really was a terrorist attack, the fact that the government responded with a hamfisted acceleration of the security state, and by bombing the Middle East into a quagmire, notwithstanding.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stonehands
    Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you, smart ass.
    , @Incitatus
    Erebus claims the planes were CGI (computer generated images) and no genuine planes flew into the towers. He can’t explain how eyewitnesses onsite saw CGI planes with their naked eyes. He can’t explain what happened to the plane crews and passengers. When confronted by people who know victim families personally, he retreats into disbelief. He can’t explain why the second tower hit (WTC 2) came down before the first (WTC 1). He can’t explain why obscure WTC 7 came down at all, but urges “let Google be your friend.”

    See #304 if you want an adventurous romp in fantasy land:
    http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-how-the-cia-invented-conspiracy-theories/

    Erebus is a preening idiot savant, without the savant part.
    , @Erebus
    Congratulations on a stellar rant. Wildly off the mark, but a hell of a volley. I hope it didn't leave any permanent stains.

    I find only one thing I can address. To whit:

    Why should it be any more difficult to believe that our government would kill 3000 Americans in our own time if it suited its purposes? Given the fact that the US deep state is one of the most corrupt, feckless, and downright byzantine organizations to ever exist, I have no trouble at all believing such a thing, except for the minor fact that it did not happen.
     
    To which I have 3 questions:
    1. What happens if you remove that "minor fact"? Would you go Che Guevara?
    2. What would you do if confronted by irrefutable evidence? Would you be able to change your mind?
    3. What would that evidence have to look like for you to find it irrefutable?
  47. To make a long story short, NIST, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, has been forced to admit that for 2.25 seconds WTC7 (which, by the way, was not hit by any aircraft on that day), was collapsing a free-fall acceleration. This is only possible if 8 floors of this huge buildings were removed instantly and symmetrically.

    Okay, this is a specific claim that is either true or false and The Saker points to a specific source, even a specific figure and page number (thanks!). Let’s check:

    In Stage 2, the north face descended at gravitational acceleration, as the buckled columns provided negligible support to the upper portion of the north face.

    NIST is very clear here that they are referring to “the north face” of WT7. The Saker and others infer that this means the entire building. Is that justified?

    Well, return to the report. The report describes the collapse of the building beginning with interior supports, specifically column 79. So the NIST says that the interior of the building failed first. This is visible in videos of the collapse as the east penthouse falls from view about 5 seconds before the north face begins its collapse:

    Table 3-1 has a clear list of events in the collapse.

    So, by the time the “north face” collapses, the interior supports are no longer supporting it. The free fall period does NOT occur at the beginning of the collapse of the north face, but nearly 2 seconds in . This is perfectly consistent with the failure of exterior columns supporting the north face.

    Substituting the entire building for what the NIST calls “the north face” is not justified and ignores the NIST description of the collapse in the very same source. Sorry, but the NIST did not “admit” anything here and it appears that The Saker is simply misreading the source.

    Read More
    • Agree: Wizard of Oz
    • Replies: @Stephen R. Diamond
    Revealing that there are no replies to the devastating point. My experience is that when pinned down on a specific argument, they change the subject. Confirmed here.
  48. @Anonymous
    The purported cell phone calls made from the hijacked planes on 9/11 have been proven to have been impossible:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPG6WURLC7Y

    i read from a reliable source that there was no cell phone activity on the plane that crashed in the field, ostensibly from passenger revolt. brave americans giving their lives for the lives of other americans is a good narrative. as well, a proper motive for revenge.

    Read More
  49. @This Is Our Home
    Even Saker himself does not believe this silly article. His hyperbolic praise for a handful of weirdos is hilarious, especially his use of Wikipedia stats on world opinion, especially shame avoiding Muslim opinion, to claim some sort of traction in the US lol. What he has done is found a rich seam of loons and paranoid schizophrenics whom he has realised he can mine for cash for the rest of his life. It is the L L Ron Hubbard retirement plan.

    The hasbarists have arrived.

    You are exactly what Saker is talking about.

    Insert other foot.

    Read More
  50. @Tom Welsh
    Another excellent (and, IMHO, very plausible) motive might be simply to create a much larger market for armaments for the foreseeable future. After 15 years, the US armed forces are still using up so many bombs, rockets, etc. that the "defence" industry has plenty of big orders stacking up. If you care a lot about money, and not at all about human life, there is a very likely motive for you.

    Walsh is suggesting that rich conspirators (=the bankers or the jooze or the Dark State, your choice) conspired to become richer whilst risking being executed for mass murder. That’s it? The lure of lucre? That seems to be ridiculous on the face of it. In paradigm cases of cui bono, as when Mr. Smith murders Mrs. Smith for one or more specific good reasons, cops ask themselves “who benefited from the act?” and that’s the first person they look for. The Truthers can’t nail the act on anyone in particular and they can’t supply a proximate reason to do it. If you start with the assumption that everything is a conspiracy, that we all live, like Jim Carey, in The Truman Show, then 9/11 was a conspiracy. If not, not.

    Read More
  51. @Tom Welsh
    They have done what they could. Not always is it possible (immediately, at any rate) to bring down a treasonous, murderous government and punish those responsible. More often, it is the government that asserts its monopoly on violence to punish those who have told the truth about it (sound familiar?)

    Nevertheless, publishing the truth for those who will hear it is a moral act (and a brave one). We should not refrain from doing what is right just because we cannot be sure it will immediately lead to complete success. You can never tell when a good action, or a piece of courageous truth-telling, may start a big crack in the fabric of an evil system.

    That's certainly the view that people like Alexander Solzhenitsyn took.

    I did not speak against truth or truthers. The first time I saw the towers come down on television I knew they were brought down by controlled demolition. I did not need a movement and fifteen years to know that the official story is a lie. I know what is not true. I am still waiting to know what is true. I would especially like to know the names of Americans who participated in the conspiracy and those who continue to maintain the cover up.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Tom Welsh
    Sorry if I misunderstood you. Web fora are low-bandwidth media at best!
  52. @biz
    More masturbatory civilizational masochism.

    The 9/11 attacks were carried out by agents of Al Qaeda, as part of the ongoing war against the West and other non-Muslims that has been a consistent feature of Jihadist Islamist ideology for 1400 years.

    One does not need elaborate conspiracies to explain why Muslim emirates and empires enslaved an estimated 50 million Europeans in the past, nor why currently, just to cite one of many worldwide examples, militant Islamists from the minority in Southern Thailand behead and display the mutilated bodies of Buddhist priests. 9/11 is a perfect fit to this pattern and requires no further explanation as well.

    All of these various idiots who seek to blame everyone but Al Qaeda for 9/11 are nothing more than civilizational cuckholds for Jihadist Islamism and the destruction of the West at its hands. Unfortunately the nature of the internet vastly oversamples the popularity of such viewpoints, which outside of majority-Muslim countries and Muslim communities within Western countries is limited to a truly small fringe.

    A word conspicuously absent from this comment by hasbara operative “biz” is “Saudi”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @biz
    I would throw that accusation of being paid to blog by some foreign entity - perhaps the Iranian regime, or the Qataris - right back at you, except I know that the truth is almost certainly much more pathetic than that - that you are an entirely voluntarily ideological cuckhold for Jihadists against the West.
  53. @WorkingClass
    I did not speak against truth or truthers. The first time I saw the towers come down on television I knew they were brought down by controlled demolition. I did not need a movement and fifteen years to know that the official story is a lie. I know what is not true. I am still waiting to know what is true. I would especially like to know the names of Americans who participated in the conspiracy and those who continue to maintain the cover up.

    Sorry if I misunderstood you. Web fora are low-bandwidth media at best!

    Read More
    • Replies: @WorkingClass
    No problem sir. I agree with your remarks and that is why I offered clarification. I try to resist participating in 9/11 threads because everybody's mind is made up. Its like talking about abortion. In fifteen years the conversation has not changed in spite of the heroic efforts of some among the truthers.

    Truthers will not bring down the Anglo/Zio Empire just as Solzhenitsyn did not bring down the Soviet Union. Empires must be endured until they die of natural causes. I wish it were not so.

    Images of Solzhenitsyn with Putin:

    https://www.google.com/search?q=Solzhenitsyn+and+Putin&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj0uNvq8IfPAhVIcD4KHVLaDNsQsAQIHQ&biw=1024&bih=487&dpr=1.25
  54. @Tom Welsh
    They have done what they could. Not always is it possible (immediately, at any rate) to bring down a treasonous, murderous government and punish those responsible. More often, it is the government that asserts its monopoly on violence to punish those who have told the truth about it (sound familiar?)

    Nevertheless, publishing the truth for those who will hear it is a moral act (and a brave one). We should not refrain from doing what is right just because we cannot be sure it will immediately lead to complete success. You can never tell when a good action, or a piece of courageous truth-telling, may start a big crack in the fabric of an evil system.

    That's certainly the view that people like Alexander Solzhenitsyn took.

    The case for exposing those criminally responsible on 9/11 has always been clear. The charge, using the Administration’s own account, is Gross Negligence and criminal Dereliction of Duty (if not Treason). They were warned repeatedly from January 2001. They chose inaction. Why weren’t they indicted?

    Add Crimes Against Peace and Launching Aggressive War for Iraq March 2003. Other crimes (perjury, incitement, torture, kidnapping, profiteering, etc) beg for justice.

    Ignoring the possible in favor of an elusive perfect likely leads nowhere.

    Read More
  55. “Of course, the stakes are sky-high: if 9/11 was an inside job, then the US government is not only absolutely illegitimate, it is in fact an occupation government controlled by either foreign elements, or traitors or both.”

    This is my point. The government is still controlled by foreign elements and traitors.

    Read More
  56. @Robert Magill

    The answer to your question should be obvious. The purpose of a false-flag is not to destroy or militarily cripple the country; rather, it is done for the sake of furnishing that country with a pretext for war.
     
    Why must it be a false flag? Maybe those fifteen guys figured it out too. Regular people are sometimes capable of incredible events.

    Maybe those fifteen guys figured it out too.

    Figured out what?

    Regular people are sometimes capable of incredible events.

    I’m not denying that the hijackers did their part. But as a truther, I insist that their actions alone, with no help from the inside, would not have been sufficient to bring down 3 WTC buildings with 2 airplanes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky

    I’m not denying that the hijackers did their part.
     
    Hmm, well, that's where we would part ways on this topic. I would certainly deny it. I do not see any real evidence that the people they claim hijacked the planes did so. It's commonplace to point out that there is no proof that any of these guys were even on the planes. I think the fakery is beyond that though. I doubt that the flights in question even occurred.

    Regardless, it looks pretty clear that the alleged hijackers did not have the necessary skills to do what is claimed. In general, when you study these events, you see that the people who are claimed to be the perpetrators are just patsies. That is the case with the JFK assassination and the other main assassinations in the sixties, like MLK and RFK.

    But, getting back to 9/11, the whole hijacking story looks like a total red herring. I am largely convinced that no passenger planes hit any buildings, none were hijacked. Most likely the flights in question did not even take place.
  57. @Tom Welsh
    "Nobody will thank the truther for putting them in that position. And, the smarter they are the worse they react".

    And those are exactly the same people who, when talk of the Holocaust comes up, ask earnestly, "But why did ordinary German citizens allow all this wickedness to go on? Surely they had to have known what was happening?"

    And those are exactly the same people who, when talk of the Holocaust comes up, ask earnestly, “But why did ordinary German citizens allow all this wickedness to go on? Surely they had to have known what was happening?”

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0_BZphQ7Qo

    Monika Schaefer, German-Canadian

    “Germans were made to be ashamed of their culture . . .

    1:44: “Many years ago I reproached my mother. You see, I had been thoroughly indoctrinated — we all were — the stories seemed to be all around us, in school, in television, in the very air. And the evilness of Adolf Hitler was deep and diabolic as imaginable.

    I said to my mother, “Why didn’t you, your friends, your family — Why didn’t you DO something to stop these bad things from happening. . . . The death camps . . . You should have done something; you must have known. . . .”

    2:25 She listened. [Then] very quietly she said, “We didn’t know about any of that. We just did not know.”

    2:43: Well, now I know why she did not know: It is because these things did not happen.”

    Read More
  58. I’m not denying that the hijackers did their part. But as a truther, I insist that their actions alone, with no help from the inside, would not have been sufficient to bring down 3 WTC buildings with 2 airplanes.

    I’ve been curious about the structural integrity of those WTC buildings. 1, 2, and 7 fell but the other smaller ones were subsequently razed so I guess we’ll never know.

    Read More
    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
    I'm curious about the structural integrity of those three buildings too. They had no problem standing tall and without incident for forty years but then all three collapsed within just a few hours of one another.

    Two were involved in plane crashes much smaller than those they were designed to withstand and WTC7 had only minor fires burning for a few hours. All three collapsed so quickly and in a manner that contradicts Newton's Laws, specifically the law of the conservation of momentum, that the only logical conclusion is that the structural integrity was destroyed in a matter of seconds by controlled demolitions.
  59. @Tom Welsh
    Sorry if I misunderstood you. Web fora are low-bandwidth media at best!

    No problem sir. I agree with your remarks and that is why I offered clarification. I try to resist participating in 9/11 threads because everybody’s mind is made up. Its like talking about abortion. In fifteen years the conversation has not changed in spite of the heroic efforts of some among the truthers.

    Truthers will not bring down the Anglo/Zio Empire just as Solzhenitsyn did not bring down the Soviet Union. Empires must be endured until they die of natural causes. I wish it were not so.

    Images of Solzhenitsyn with Putin:

    https://www.google.com/search?q=Solzhenitsyn+and+Putin&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj0uNvq8IfPAhVIcD4KHVLaDNsQsAQIHQ&biw=1024&bih=487&dpr=1.25

    Read More
  60. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @War for Blair Mountain
    Anon

    The family of the victims on those three passenger jets refute that claim of yours and Professor Robert Ray Griffith. You are a vile-evil-psychopath with a very nasty political agenda


    The originator of this lie is of course Philosophy Professor Robert Ray Griffith who wrote a book calling for solidarity with Muslim "American" Muslims and 9/11 Truthers.


    Just a reminder:recently a five year old Native Born White American Child was raped and urinated on by three young Muslim Legal Immigrant Males in Idaho. I blame the 9/11 Truthers for this monumental crime against this Native Born White American Female Child.



    Richard Spencer-Jared Taylor-Peter Brimelow should have talked about nothing else but the brutal gang rape of this Native Born White American Child in Idaho during their Alt Right Press Conference.


    Spencer-Taylor-Brimelow...the three CUCKS of the Alt Right did lectured us about 1)Asians are smarter than White Americans..2)and how much they admired the (((neocons))) during thier Alt Right comming out party.


    Time to be Alt Alt Right...

    The purported cell phone calls made from the hijacked planes on 9/11 would not have been possible. The video posted above shows an experiment which demonstrates that cell phone calls would not have been possible.

    Furthermore, as this article from December of 2004 explains, it was generally acknowledged and understood, including by the FCC, that cell phone calls from planes before 2004 were not possible:

    “Can you hear me on a 747? / FCC set to consider in-flight cell phones”

    San Francisco Chronicle December 15th 2004.

    http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Can-you-hear-me-on-a-747-FCC-set-to-consider-2663745.php

    “Today’s vote by the FCC is intended to address whether technology has improved to the extent that cell phone calls now are possible above 10,000 feet — they weren’t in the past — and whether they’d mess up ground- based communications.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Boris

    The purported cell phone calls made from the hijacked planes on 9/11 would not have been possible.
     
    Most of the calls were made from Air Phones. The few that weren't were made toward the end of flights at low altitude when cell phone calls would have been possible.

    This is another example of truthers rewriting the evidence.
  61. edNels [AKA "geoshmoe"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Erebus
    I've long been an admirer of Thomas Kuhn's.

    Indeed, humans live a narrative that continuously tells them who they are, the world they live in, and their and everybody/everything else's place in it.
    I've often thought that the "truther" versions of 9/11 don't get traction not because they don''t make physical sense, but precisely because they do. I've watched competent professionals, confronted with mathematical proof (that they sometimes worked out for themselves), look from side to side in obvious discomfort and then reject it wholesale using some semi-religious psycho-babble argument like "Nobody could be that evil"....

    Why?
    Well, a part of the answer is that to acknowledge the facts is to also face an life changing decision. That is, whether one is OK with the fact that one's "betters" just murdered 3000 of your compatriots with absolute impunity, or not.
    If not, a moral imperative stares one in the face. One has to go Che Guevara and fight this evil with every fibre of his being, at the cost of one's career, home, (probably) family and any hopes & dreams one may have had for a comfortable, long life.
    The shame of shirking the moral imperative, that one is OK with one's "betters" murdering how ever many they like of ones compatriots, is to admit to cowardice and henceforth to live an unprincipled, grovelling existence at the whim of those "betters".

    Nobody will thank the truther for putting them in that position. And, the smarter they are the worse they react. So, their internal narratives build defences in an earnest desperation, scorning the truth they themselves worked out and casting all other plain facts out the window. No obfuscatory, prevaricating, question-begging, word-mincing tactic will go untried as the lifelong narrative desperately tries to save itself.

    That's humans for ya, and the "betters" know it well. That's how they got to be betters.

    Makes sense.

    Nobody will thank the truth…]

    (truthers).

    […their internal narratives build defences in an earnest desperation, scorning the truth they themselves worked out and casting all other plain facts out…]

    Denial, demonstrated in the Classic electrified sheep experiment in psychology 1a: when faced with no option other than to be shocked from the floor in a cage, the sheep gives up on fighting, and begins to graze on imaginary grass, (in an imaginary… pastoral scene,?) ah how tranquil…

    Read More
  62. @guest
    My question: why bother collapsing world trade center 7? People barely even noticed, nor do they much remember. Weren't the two towers and the Pentagon enough?

    because building 7 had already been filled with explosives, and they couldn’t allow anyone to examine it. It might have been the target of the plane shot down in Pennsylvania.

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Kabala
    Most Americans never even knew there was such a building as World Trade Center #7 (and unless they have been following truther debates, they still don't). I can't imagine it would rank on the top 100 targets of either real or fake terrorists, let alone the top four.
    , @guest
    That just pushes the question v back one step: why target building 7 with a plane? Wouldn't you get more out of flying it into the Capitol, for instance?
  63. @Anonymous
    The purported cell phone calls made from the hijacked planes on 9/11 would not have been possible. The video posted above shows an experiment which demonstrates that cell phone calls would not have been possible.

    Furthermore, as this article from December of 2004 explains, it was generally acknowledged and understood, including by the FCC, that cell phone calls from planes before 2004 were not possible:

    "Can you hear me on a 747? / FCC set to consider in-flight cell phones"

    San Francisco Chronicle December 15th 2004.

    http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Can-you-hear-me-on-a-747-FCC-set-to-consider-2663745.php

    “Today’s vote by the FCC is intended to address whether technology has improved to the extent that cell phone calls now are possible above 10,000 feet — they weren’t in the past — and whether they’d mess up ground- based communications."
     

    The purported cell phone calls made from the hijacked planes on 9/11 would not have been possible.

    Most of the calls were made from Air Phones. The few that weren’t were made toward the end of flights at low altitude when cell phone calls would have been possible.

    This is another example of truthers rewriting the evidence.

    Read More
    • Replies: @War for Blair Mountain
    Boris

    There is simpler way to expose the lies of the Truthers. Who were the wives of doomed passengers speaking to? The men on the passenger jet that crashed in Shanksville were speaking to their wives moments before the ran up front to take out the highjackers. But according to 9/11 Truthers, these were all actors on the payroll of the Bush Family.

    I consider the 9/11 Truthers to be as Treasonous as the Neocons.
    , @Amasius
    Including CeeCee Lyles saying "it's a frame."

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRGA3NRVgY4

    Oh I'm sorry it's "You did great" which makes a lot more sense.
    , @Anonymous
    Deena Burnett reported that she received cell phone calls from her husband Tom on Flight 93 which would not have been possible:

    http://www.911truth.org/griffin-response-paul-zarembka-critique-phone-call-fakery/

    Deena told the FBI on the day of the attacks that she had received “three to five cellular phone calls” from her husband, Tom Burnett, calling from United 93. 4 “Only one of the calls,” the FBI report added, “did not show on the caller identification as she was on the line with another call.” 5 The FBI later indicated that she had received (only) three calls. If we accept that as a correct statement of fact, then Deena’s testimony would have been that her Caller ID showed two of the calls she received from her husband to have been from his cell phone.

    And yet, it is now generally agreed, her husband could not have made cell phone calls from United 93, which was at the time over 40,000 feet in the air. And when in 2006, the FBI’s report on phone calls from the 9/11 planes became public in relation to the Moussaoui trial, this report said of Tom Burnett that his calls were made from seat-back phones. The FBI’s report thereby avoided the problem of endorsing technologically impossible phone calls.
     
    Flight 77 was not equipped with Air Phones, and there were purported cell phone calls made from Flight 77 which would not have been possible:

    According to her husband — Solicitor General Theodore “Ted” Olson — she had called him twice from American 77, with the first call lasting “about one (1) minute” 19 and the second one “two or three or four minutes.” 20

    It appears, however, that this story could not have been true, for several reasons. In the first place, the story told by Ted Olson, as purportedly told to him by his wife — the story according to which three or four slight men armed with only knives and box-cutters held off 60 passengers and crew members — was extremely implausible.

    Second, there seemed to be no way that Barbara Olson could have made calls from American 77: Her flight at the time of the calls was too high for cell phone calls, and the FBI, in any case, indicated in 2004 that there were no cell phone calls from this flight. (To repeat: The FBI said: “All of the calls from Flight 77 were made via the onboard airphone system.” 21 ) The Boeing 757s equipped for American Airlines, moreover, evidently had no onboard phones for use by passengers and crew. These facts, especially when combined with the implausibility of the Olson story, had provided strong reasons to doubt the truth of that story prior to 2006. But in that year, the FBI’s telephone evidence about American Flight 77 was made public as part of the FBI’s evidence for the Moussaoui trial, and it said, in effect, that the Olson story could not have been true: Whereas Ted Olson had said that he had received two calls from his wife, one of which lasted about a minute and the second of which lasted at least twice as long, the FBI report said that Barbara Olson attempted (only) one call, that it was “unconnected,” and that it (therefore) lasted “0 seconds.” 22
     
  64. @Intelligent Dasein
    Your comment, gold box and all, is exactly the kind of oblivious, preachy, self-righteous bullshit that proves what the Truthers are really all about---vanity and anarchy. Truther's beliefs are a method of self-aggrandizement that allows them to feel superior to the rest of the world; that is to say, to the great unwashed masses whom they accuse of believing "the official version," regardless of what such people actually believe or whether they even exist (for the facts do not matter; it's all about the melodrama with you, anyway), and whom you libel as cowards, ignorant, government shills, "sheeple," and other choice terms from your little catalog of epithets.

    This act of deprecation is your real objective. It provides the little power-fixes, little dopamine rushes, that allow you to feel oh-so dominant and in-the-know. "Look how much better I am than all these ignorant sheeple," you say to yourself. It also provides you with every excuse you need to ignore your civic responsibilities and mock society's institutions whenever doing so would be convenient for you. After all, society is unjust and all those institutions are just serving the deep state and shilling for the "official version." You, sir, have found a civic loophole. You get to enjoy the benefits of living in the commonwealth while denigrating and flouting it at the same time. You're just a Jacobin, a Bolshevik, another liberal revolutionary cloaked in a different ideology.

    But let's look at your specific claim the majority of people simply cannot accept "what really happened" on 9/11 because that would entail the psychologically impossible task of acknowledging that---gasp!---their own government murdered 3,000 people in a false flag incident that set the backdrop for the roll-out of the War on Terror.

    What kind of a mouth-breathing idiot do you have to be to make such a claim? It simply doesn't make any sense. Even a cursory glance at history reveals that governments have been slaughtering people on a large scale, for all kinds of reasons, since the very beginning of time, and yet that fact seems to have been acknowledged without any attendant epidemic of cognitive dissonance. Why should it be any more difficult to believe that our government would kill 3000 Americans in our own time if it suited its purposes? Given the fact that the US deep state is one of the most corrupt, feckless, and downright byzantine organizations to ever exist, I have no trouble at all believing such a thing, except for the minor fact that it did not happen. I certainly am not impeded by any unrealistic, juvenile hangups regarding the sanctity of the federal government.

    But I suspect that you are. I suspect that you think , somewhere deep inside, that whatever powers ought to be governing the affairs of men---be it the Constitution "as written," or some sort of Randian libertarian fantasy---really are pure and perfect as the driven snow, and therefore it required an act of unsurpassed dastardliness to obscure them: enter 9/11 "Truth." I suspect that you think yourself to be quite above reproach, and that your adherence to 9/11 "Truth" gives you a sense of permanent absolution from all past and future guilt. And I further suspect that the nefarious plots and subterfuges you project upon The Powers That Be are precisely the sort of acts you yourself would commit if you held their high station. Your feigned moral indignation at them is really just a histrionic facade, as moral indignation always is. You don't hate them. You don't even really fear them. You covet them. Your only outrage arises from the fact that someone else got to do them and you did not. Therefore belief in "Truth" is an existential necessity of yours. It is the sacrament by which you hypostatically unite yourself with everything you desire. All thought is but the mirror image of the thinker.

    But in reality it is all a lie. 9/11 was not a false flag. It really was a terrorist attack, the fact that the government responded with a hamfisted acceleration of the security state, and by bombing the Middle East into a quagmire, notwithstanding.

    Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you, smart ass.

    Read More
  65. @Miro23
    I can 100% endorse this statement from the article:

    "I am personally deeply grateful to all those in the 9/11 Truth movement who opened my eyes to what took place 15 years ago: I am awed by the courage, integrity and intelligence of the thousands of people who refused to call an orange an apple."

    Some other points would be;

    Article: 'So while “they” (the US “deep state”) did get away with it, “they” probably did not expect to be so strongly and, I might add, successfully challenged by their own population.'

    Comment: On 9/11 there was an infrastructure in place to support a Neocon dictatorship (Emergency Regime) led by VP Cheney involving the Patriot Act, Homeland Security and national emergency procedures dating from the Reagan administration. If they had been triggered (for example by a general Middle eastern war involving Iran) then the US population wouldn't be challenging anything since a democratic US after 9/11 wasn't part of the plan.

    Article: '...and we might still witness some major false flag inside the USA (say a “dirty bomb” as a way to preempt a election’s outcome?), but at least for the past 15 years this did not happen and if it ever happens (I think that it probably will), it will probably not be as brazen and “in your face” as 9/11 was.'

    Comment: More likely would be a Weimar style financial meltdown originating with the FED ( a QE to end all QE's or a big rise in interest rates). This would be chaotic , allowing the Nomenklatura to try again for an Emergency Regime (to save the USA ).

    Basically time is running against them as this article so clearly shows, and they have to have a dictatorship one way or another.

    Comment: More likely would be a Weimar style financial meltdown originating with the FED ( a QE to end all QE’s or a big rise in interest rates). This would be chaotic

    Ridiculous. I had this exchange with the Saker in June of 2015 [ http://www.unz.com/tsaker/the-meaning-of-the-us-saber-rattling-at-the-borders-of-russia/#comment-1016780 ], where he asserted :

    But methinks that the debt monetization strategy as currently practiced by both Japan and the US will end in either hyperinflation or default, or both.

    So this has been the trope, that “hyperinflation” shall be inflicted on the public by the deliberate actions of the “Nomenclatura”, since at least 2009. Where is it? This has become quite the ‘end-of-days’ portent hasn’t it?

    I had extended a wager to Saker; it was obviously declined.

    The basic idea here is that our screaming set, “hyperinflation” it does not understand . Short of a destruction in U.S productive capacity a hyperinflation is a near impossiblity. The Fed can and might [small probability] engage in more QE, as may the ECB, BoE and BoJ. It still will not come to pass.

    If you wish to call for a hyperinflationary event, we shall hold your feet to fire and ask for an expiry date on that call. I’ll offer the reverse: over the course of the next year we will not experience hyperinflation. Upon expiry of that date I shall extend it to another year and so on for the next decade.

    What’s your move?

    Read More
    • Replies: @JVC
    Inflation is defined as an expansion of the money supply, and since 2009, the fed has expanded the money supply to extremes--hence hyperinflation. It has not yet shown up in everyday markets, but the current Dow average is a direct result of said hyper inflation. If, or when all that qe money shows up on the street (fed will not let that happen if they can manage to keep control) the dollar will be no different than Wiemar marks. Where the fed can loose control is the international money barons deciding enough of the USD as world reserve currency ---something that seems to be in the works now.
    , @Miro23
    At present QE money creation fed into banks leads to 1) it being deposited with the FED to gain interest 2) it going into speculation to gain profits on stock and bond exposures.

    My move is that QE money "dumped" on the public is an entirely different concept that hasn't been done so far. This is the Weimar system (or Bernanke's "Helicopter Money") where the public's stock of cash far exceeds the production of goods. It produces a short boom until people catch on to what is happening, at which point there is a fast slide into hyperinflation.

    The reason it hasn't happened, is that they haven't done it yet. When they do, it will.
  66. The defense of official 9/11 narrative is live-or-die issue for Israel and Jewish domination of the West. It is not surprising that the usual and known hasbarniks appear here as a great opponents of alternative explanations.

    Read More
  67. There is none so blind as he who won’t see…….
    We here in Ft. Meade and Langley are laughing our asses off. We left the initial picture of the 25′ hole in the pentagon facade thinking we would need to innoculate the masses of asses against various “conspiracy theories”…….inviting the question “what happened to the wings, the rendered cadavers, the tail components?”. No one posed the question……..

    Read More
  68. Still the best response to conspiracy theories in general: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4meFC1ee7Q

    Read More
    • Replies: @War for Blair Mountain
    Ha...Ha...
    , @vinteuil
    Despite no fewer than 74 comments posted in the past 30 days, I can't give you my "LOL," on the grounds that I'm not an active commenter.

    Clearly, there's a glitch somewhere.

    Anyway, LOL - brilliant video.
  69. “Like Albigensianism, it is a sort of widespread heresy against the natural order.”

    The” natural order” such as the catholic church that tried to GENOCIDE the good, devout, Bible-believing, evangelical Albigensians?

    But then again you are the numbskull who thinks it is within reason for DC to murder a few thousand of its citizens -as a means to achieve its ends.

    What a jabroni.

    Read More
  70. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Groovy Battle for Blair Mountain"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Boris

    The purported cell phone calls made from the hijacked planes on 9/11 would not have been possible.
     
    Most of the calls were made from Air Phones. The few that weren't were made toward the end of flights at low altitude when cell phone calls would have been possible.

    This is another example of truthers rewriting the evidence.

    Boris

    There is simpler way to expose the lies of the Truthers. Who were the wives of doomed passengers speaking to? The men on the passenger jet that crashed in Shanksville were speaking to their wives moments before the ran up front to take out the highjackers. But according to 9/11 Truthers, these were all actors on the payroll of the Bush Family.

    I consider the 9/11 Truthers to be as Treasonous as the Neocons.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stonehands
    Do you consider the 9/11 commission report to be a thorough and truthful account of what happened that day?

    Did any "heads roll" at the alphabet agencies- whose lapses allowed these events
    to unfold?
    , @Anonymous
    Deena Burnett reported that she received cell phone calls from her husband Tom on Flight 93 which would not have been possible:

    Barbara Olson is purported to have called her husband from Flight 77, which was not equipped with Air Phones. Cell phone calls from Flight 77 would not have been possible when she purportedly called.
  71. @folktruther
    because building 7 had already been filled with explosives, and they couldn't allow anyone to examine it. It might have been the target of the plane shot down in Pennsylvania.

    Most Americans never even knew there was such a building as World Trade Center #7 (and unless they have been following truther debates, they still don’t). I can’t imagine it would rank on the top 100 targets of either real or fake terrorists, let alone the top four.

    Read More
    • Replies: @folktruther
    Why it was mined is a different question. Actually a good question; possibly, as has been suggested, to destroy information or, possibly, people.
  72. @Boris

    The purported cell phone calls made from the hijacked planes on 9/11 would not have been possible.
     
    Most of the calls were made from Air Phones. The few that weren't were made toward the end of flights at low altitude when cell phone calls would have been possible.

    This is another example of truthers rewriting the evidence.

    Including CeeCee Lyles saying “it’s a frame.”

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRGA3NRVgY4

    Oh I’m sorry it’s “You did great” which makes a lot more sense.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Boris
    lol. I couldn't tell what was said there. I like the idea that a conspiracy meticulously planned for years could be undone because the government impersonator says "It's a frame," which, I guess, is what you would naturally say after recording your fake phone call.
  73. @Wizard of Oz
    The Saker knows a little bit about some things mostly related to Russia and can sometimes say some interesting or thought provoking things about them. But if he wants also to have enough credibility to persuade anyone of anything he thinks important he should refrain from behaving like a prevocious but itresponsible and excitable 15 year old.

    I doubt that he has himself read that wholly inconclusive piece he proffered in full from the "Open Chemical Physics Journal" but he might have saved others time that could be better spent by acknowledging that it is from one of the predatory publishers, based in Sharjah, with no proper peer review, and that charges $800 to have an article published. And isn't the key scientist, Steven Jones of Brigham Young University until suspended, the notorious Cold Fusion fraud or nutter?

    Interesting that if one conscientiously Googles "What is active thermitic material" it is virtually all related to 9/11 though you do get a lot of sense out of the Wikipedia entry on thermite and controlled demolition of the WTC buildings. Here's a challenge to the enthusiasts. First read and understand the Wikipedia entry then have a go at editing it to suit your narrative. And don't give up but report your efforts and what happens to them on UR.

    As for the report by NIST which The Saker invites us to read though I doubt that he has read it all.... Saker the scientific polymath says it adds up to total BS because it admits - actually it calculates and asserts - that WTC 7's collapse included 2.25 seconds of falling at close to free fall speed! Devastating according to the all purpose opiniator and know all.

    There is a lot of trolling and diversion with regards to 9/11.

    What about this:

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-military-drills-of-september-11th-...

    Read More
  74. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Groovy Battle for Blair Mountain"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @DavidB
    Still the best response to conspiracy theories in general: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4meFC1ee7Q

    Ha…Ha…

    Read More
  75. @Amasius
    Including CeeCee Lyles saying "it's a frame."

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRGA3NRVgY4

    Oh I'm sorry it's "You did great" which makes a lot more sense.

    lol. I couldn’t tell what was said there. I like the idea that a conspiracy meticulously planned for years could be undone because the government impersonator says “It’s a frame,” which, I guess, is what you would naturally say after recording your fake phone call.

    Read More
  76. @War for Blair Mountain
    Boris

    There is simpler way to expose the lies of the Truthers. Who were the wives of doomed passengers speaking to? The men on the passenger jet that crashed in Shanksville were speaking to their wives moments before the ran up front to take out the highjackers. But according to 9/11 Truthers, these were all actors on the payroll of the Bush Family.

    I consider the 9/11 Truthers to be as Treasonous as the Neocons.

    Do you consider the 9/11 commission report to be a thorough and truthful account of what happened that day?

    Did any “heads roll” at the alphabet agencies- whose lapses allowed these events
    to unfold?

    Read More
    • Replies: @War for Blair Mountain
    Stonehands

    I consider the NIST...by many order of magnitude...a much more reliable source than the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth-David Ray Griffith-Purchase College Film Students(Dylan Avery)-the scientific sewage know as the Truther thermite study.


    I consider the lead Structural Engineer who head the design and construction of the TT a much more reliable source on engineering than the aforementioned. By the way, the lead Structural Engineer for the TT ..along with the wives of the brave men who died at Shanksville PA..have been accused by 9/11 Truthers as being part of the Bush-Cheney 9/11 Conspirator Team.

    But more importantly, I have followed the scientific debate with 9/11 Truthers for 15 f....g years...gave 'em a fair hearing...and have come to the conclusion that they are psychopathic treasonous liars...they have nasty-malignant-psychopathic intent and motive....
  77. I love it, 2 commentators are having a hissy fit trying to defend the official narrative.

    you can smell the desperation when they attack the poster instead of the post.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Boris
    And yet no one has yet responded to the post where I pointed out The Saker's misreading of the NIST report. Hm.
  78. @James Kabala
    Most Americans never even knew there was such a building as World Trade Center #7 (and unless they have been following truther debates, they still don't). I can't imagine it would rank on the top 100 targets of either real or fake terrorists, let alone the top four.

    Why it was mined is a different question. Actually a good question; possibly, as has been suggested, to destroy information or, possibly, people.

    Read More
    • Replies: @War for Blair Mountain
    James Kabbala's countergument....although clever...is debate overkill. If the 9/11 Truthers can't get the physics and engineering of the collapse of the TT right...ignore everything else that comes after.
  79. @Astuteobservor II
    I love it, 2 commentators are having a hissy fit trying to defend the official narrative.

    you can smell the desperation when they attack the poster instead of the post.

    And yet no one has yet responded to the post where I pointed out The Saker’s misreading of the NIST report. Hm.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Astuteobservor II
    that is the thing. he presents his arguments, you present yours. that is a healthy discussion. you may have "discredited" one of his sources/talking points, but what about the others?

    your point wasn't the entire article you know.

    what about his others points? please counter them if you can.
    , @Incitatus
    Caution: Most of the posters are on irrational crusades in looney tune land. Don’t expect thoughtful attention.

    Hedges word may bring small comfort: "A public that can no longer distinguish between truth and fiction is left to interpret reality through illusion."
  80. @DavidB
    Still the best response to conspiracy theories in general: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4meFC1ee7Q

    Despite no fewer than 74 comments posted in the past 30 days, I can’t give you my “LOL,” on the grounds that I’m not an active commenter.

    Clearly, there’s a glitch somewhere.

    Anyway, LOL – brilliant video.

    Read More
  81. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Groovy Battle for Blair Mountain"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Stonehands
    Do you consider the 9/11 commission report to be a thorough and truthful account of what happened that day?

    Did any "heads roll" at the alphabet agencies- whose lapses allowed these events
    to unfold?

    Stonehands

    I consider the NIST…by many order of magnitude…a much more reliable source than the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth-David Ray Griffith-Purchase College Film Students(Dylan Avery)-the scientific sewage know as the Truther thermite study.

    I consider the lead Structural Engineer who head the design and construction of the TT a much more reliable source on engineering than the aforementioned. By the way, the lead Structural Engineer for the TT ..along with the wives of the brave men who died at Shanksville PA..have been accused by 9/11 Truthers as being part of the Bush-Cheney 9/11 Conspirator Team.

    But more importantly, I have followed the scientific debate with 9/11 Truthers for 15 f….g years…gave ‘em a fair hearing…and have come to the conclusion that they are psychopathic treasonous liars…they have nasty-malignant-psychopathic intent and motive….

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stonehands
    I don't need to know "how" the buildings came down- to know the official version is a pack of lies.

    The end result is the never-ending war on terror.

    Why has the "Truth" been turned into a malignant word?

    P.S.

    Don't you think the alphabet agencies anonymously plant whacky theories, to discredit
    those who seek to oppose warmongering?
  82. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Groovy Battle for Blair Mountain"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @folktruther
    Why it was mined is a different question. Actually a good question; possibly, as has been suggested, to destroy information or, possibly, people.

    James Kabbala’s countergument….although clever…is debate overkill. If the 9/11 Truthers can’t get the physics and engineering of the collapse of the TT right…ignore everything else that comes after.

    Read More
  83. @5371
    A word conspicuously absent from this comment by hasbara operative "biz" is "Saudi".

    I would throw that accusation of being paid to blog by some foreign entity – perhaps the Iranian regime, or the Qataris – right back at you, except I know that the truth is almost certainly much more pathetic than that – that you are an entirely voluntarily ideological cuckhold for Jihadists against the West.

    Read More
    • Replies: @5371
    So a "cuckhold (sic) for Jihadists against the West" is someone who points to the close cooperation between Israeli agents and the world's leading sponsor of salafist terror, Saudi Arabia? Nice try, hasbara boy.
  84. Well, I’m absolutely no expert on 9/11 but I’ve certainly become extremely suspicious of the official story over time. So I might as well contribute my own two cents, copied from another comment-thread.

    A few years ago I was very surprised to discover that in the immediate aftermath, Bin Laden told various inquiring journalists that he had had absolutely nothing to do with the attacks.

    Clearly, 9/11 represented by far the greatest and most successful terrorist attack in history, and if you’re a terrorist-mastermind, why in the world would you not want to take proper credit for such a tremendous achievement? Can anyone think of the last time a terrorist leader was unwilling to take credit for his successful attack?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
    Yeah, here's another to think about, that is potentially far more devastating...

    The alleged hijackers. They go to America in some cases well over a year before the operation. At least some were in flight schools to learn how to fly airplanes. These people were quite memorable and drew attention to themselves -- apparently because they were such lousy students. And the reason for that, as far as I can tell, must be mostly that they did not know English hardly.

    For instance, the guy they say flew the plane into the Pentagon, Hani Hanjour, studied in some intensive English language program in California prior to going and studying how to fly a plane in Florida, I think.

    Just try to think about this from the (alleged) terrorists' point of view. Imagine that you are part of a scheme to fly a plane into a building in China. So you go to China a year or two before the operation, and you enroll in a Chinese language academy to learn Chinese....

    ...so that you can then go enroll in a flight school in China in which the language of instruction is Chinese.

    ...so that you can fly the plane into a building in China...

    Think about that... This is exactly what they are claiming these Arab terrorists did!

    Who would ever do that? Would this ever occur to you? Why not just enroll in a flight school in your own country, where you already are fluent in the language of instruction, and then go to China at the last possible moment and fly the plane into the building?

    The operation, as described, doesn't make any sense, does it? Who would ever concoct such a plan? Imagine yourself as one of the planners of the operation. Your operatives, by and large, cannot speak English, so you send them to America over a year before the operation, to first study English, so that they can learn to fly a plane in a flight school in which the language of instruction is English...

    , @Jacques Sheete
    Here are a couple of other good sources to keep your suspicions up.

    “Something strange happens to retired chiefs of the Israeli internal Security Service, Shin Bet.
    … once the chiefs of the service leave their jobs, they become spokesmen for peace. How come?”

    -Uri Avnery, Civil War
    http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1472915025

    “The whole system of [military involvement] was fabricated from falsehoods, and that’s what we’re operating under now.

    … it’s almost like we are exercising martial law over the whole world. We are. We are taking those precedents from our own martial law period over our own territory and applying it to the world. Someone who may be anti drone warfare in Afghanistan or Pakistan is guilty of a war crime, and gets targeted with a drone attack.”

    -Philip Weiss, The United States of Innocence — the worldview of Major Todd Pierce (retired), Part 2
    - See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2016/09/innocence-worldview-retired/#sthash.yTsWJO6a.dpuf
    , @Sam Shama

    and if you’re a terrorist-mastermind, why in the world would you not want to take proper credit for such a tremendous achievement?
     
    True enough, although it may be that Khaled Sheikh Mohamed was the main executive mastermind, OBL being the inspirational figure.

    In any case According to Hamid Mir (OBL's biographer who went to Afghanistan and interviewed members of Al-Qaeda):

    Privately they admitted everything. They said, they [who attacked on 9/11] are our brothers, but they said that “When the Americans kill Muslims in Sudan, they don’t admit that we are responsible for the attacks. When the Indians kill Kashmiris, they don’t admit that we have killed them. So now this is our turn. We have killed them and we are not going to admit that.
    My tape recorder was on and one very important al Qaeda leader he turned off my tape recorder and said, “Yes, I did it. Okay. Now play your tape recorder.” I played the tape recorder and he said “No, I’m not responsible”.
     
    Also:

    He believes that people in Pakistan and many other Arab countries are not ready to listen to objective analysis. "Even today, the majority of Pakistanis think 9/11 was not done by al- Qa'ida or Bin Laden – that it was Israel or the Jewish lobby," he says. "It is very difficult for a Muslim and Pakistani journalist to write objectively on Bin Laden and al-Qa'ida. This is the problem."
     
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/press/the-man-who-interviewed-osama-bin-laden-3-times-1639968.html
    , @biz

    Can anyone think of the last time a terrorist leader was unwilling to take credit for his successful attack?
     
    Yes, the major notorious terrorist attack in America which most closely preceded 9/11, the Olympics square bombing. And the major notorious terrorist attack in America which most closely followed 9/11, the Anthrax mailings.

    But anyway, Bin Laden did claim credit for the 9/11 attacks:
    http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/osama-bin-laden-911-confession-13506877
    , @NoseytheDuke
    Shortly after 9/11 the Taliban offered to surrender OBL on condition that evidence was provided as to his involvement. None was provided and he was not handed over to the US.
    , @Boris

    if you’re a terrorist-mastermind, why in the world would you not want to take proper credit for such a tremendous achievement?
     
    In the case of Bin Laden, probably to sow doubt so that there would not be international support for invading Afghanistan. In 2004 he released a video tape taking credit for 9/11 and explaining why Al Qaeda did it.
  85. @Sam Shama

    Comment: More likely would be a Weimar style financial meltdown originating with the FED ( a QE to end all QE’s or a big rise in interest rates). This would be chaotic
     
    Ridiculous. I had this exchange with the Saker in June of 2015 [ http://www.unz.com/tsaker/the-meaning-of-the-us-saber-rattling-at-the-borders-of-russia/#comment-1016780 ], where he asserted :

    But methinks that the debt monetization strategy as currently practiced by both Japan and the US will end in either hyperinflation or default, or both.
     
    So this has been the trope, that "hyperinflation" shall be inflicted on the public by the deliberate actions of the "Nomenclatura", since at least 2009. Where is it? This has become quite the 'end-of-days' portent hasn't it?

    I had extended a wager to Saker; it was obviously declined.

    The basic idea here is that our screaming set, "hyperinflation" it does not understand . Short of a destruction in U.S productive capacity a hyperinflation is a near impossiblity. The Fed can and might [small probability] engage in more QE, as may the ECB, BoE and BoJ. It still will not come to pass.

    If you wish to call for a hyperinflationary event, we shall hold your feet to fire and ask for an expiry date on that call. I'll offer the reverse: over the course of the next year we will not experience hyperinflation. Upon expiry of that date I shall extend it to another year and so on for the next decade.

    What's your move?

    Inflation is defined as an expansion of the money supply, and since 2009, the fed has expanded the money supply to extremes–hence hyperinflation. It has not yet shown up in everyday markets, but the current Dow average is a direct result of said hyper inflation. If, or when all that qe money shows up on the street (fed will not let that happen if they can manage to keep control) the dollar will be no different than Wiemar marks. Where the fed can loose control is the international money barons deciding enough of the USD as world reserve currency —something that seems to be in the works now.

    Read More
  86. @Intelligent Dasein
    Your comment, gold box and all, is exactly the kind of oblivious, preachy, self-righteous bullshit that proves what the Truthers are really all about---vanity and anarchy. Truther's beliefs are a method of self-aggrandizement that allows them to feel superior to the rest of the world; that is to say, to the great unwashed masses whom they accuse of believing "the official version," regardless of what such people actually believe or whether they even exist (for the facts do not matter; it's all about the melodrama with you, anyway), and whom you libel as cowards, ignorant, government shills, "sheeple," and other choice terms from your little catalog of epithets.

    This act of deprecation is your real objective. It provides the little power-fixes, little dopamine rushes, that allow you to feel oh-so dominant and in-the-know. "Look how much better I am than all these ignorant sheeple," you say to yourself. It also provides you with every excuse you need to ignore your civic responsibilities and mock society's institutions whenever doing so would be convenient for you. After all, society is unjust and all those institutions are just serving the deep state and shilling for the "official version." You, sir, have found a civic loophole. You get to enjoy the benefits of living in the commonwealth while denigrating and flouting it at the same time. You're just a Jacobin, a Bolshevik, another liberal revolutionary cloaked in a different ideology.

    But let's look at your specific claim the majority of people simply cannot accept "what really happened" on 9/11 because that would entail the psychologically impossible task of acknowledging that---gasp!---their own government murdered 3,000 people in a false flag incident that set the backdrop for the roll-out of the War on Terror.

    What kind of a mouth-breathing idiot do you have to be to make such a claim? It simply doesn't make any sense. Even a cursory glance at history reveals that governments have been slaughtering people on a large scale, for all kinds of reasons, since the very beginning of time, and yet that fact seems to have been acknowledged without any attendant epidemic of cognitive dissonance. Why should it be any more difficult to believe that our government would kill 3000 Americans in our own time if it suited its purposes? Given the fact that the US deep state is one of the most corrupt, feckless, and downright byzantine organizations to ever exist, I have no trouble at all believing such a thing, except for the minor fact that it did not happen. I certainly am not impeded by any unrealistic, juvenile hangups regarding the sanctity of the federal government.

    But I suspect that you are. I suspect that you think , somewhere deep inside, that whatever powers ought to be governing the affairs of men---be it the Constitution "as written," or some sort of Randian libertarian fantasy---really are pure and perfect as the driven snow, and therefore it required an act of unsurpassed dastardliness to obscure them: enter 9/11 "Truth." I suspect that you think yourself to be quite above reproach, and that your adherence to 9/11 "Truth" gives you a sense of permanent absolution from all past and future guilt. And I further suspect that the nefarious plots and subterfuges you project upon The Powers That Be are precisely the sort of acts you yourself would commit if you held their high station. Your feigned moral indignation at them is really just a histrionic facade, as moral indignation always is. You don't hate them. You don't even really fear them. You covet them. Your only outrage arises from the fact that someone else got to do them and you did not. Therefore belief in "Truth" is an existential necessity of yours. It is the sacrament by which you hypostatically unite yourself with everything you desire. All thought is but the mirror image of the thinker.

    But in reality it is all a lie. 9/11 was not a false flag. It really was a terrorist attack, the fact that the government responded with a hamfisted acceleration of the security state, and by bombing the Middle East into a quagmire, notwithstanding.

    Erebus claims the planes were CGI (computer generated images) and no genuine planes flew into the towers. He can’t explain how eyewitnesses onsite saw CGI planes with their naked eyes. He can’t explain what happened to the plane crews and passengers. When confronted by people who know victim families personally, he retreats into disbelief. He can’t explain why the second tower hit (WTC 2) came down before the first (WTC 1). He can’t explain why obscure WTC 7 came down at all, but urges “let Google be your friend.”

    See #304 if you want an adventurous romp in fantasy land:
    http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-how-the-cia-invented-conspiracy-theories/

    Erebus is a preening idiot savant, without the savant part.

    Read More
    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
    Yet in one short post on this thread Erebus managed to contribute more actual wisdom than in all of your own endless contributions of disinformation.
    , @Erebus
    In case anyone takes Incitatus' claims at face value instead of going to the link, I offer these examples of a troll's work:

    Erebus claims the planes were CGI (computer generated images) and no genuine planes flew into the towers.
     
    Though I personally don't believe commercial jets hit the buildings, I specifically avoided that claim. I said that we have footage of only one plane, and that the gross anomalies in said footage are best explained with reference to CGI than by any other method.

    He can’t explain how eyewitnesses onsite saw CGI planes with their naked eyes.
     
    I didn't address that topic at all in #304.

    He can’t explain what happened to the plane crews and passengers.
     
    I didn't address that topic at all in #304 either.

    When confronted by people who know victim families personally, he retreats into disbelief.
     
    Let's correct that to, "When confronted by anonymous internet entities claiming extraordinary, but irrelevant relationships, he ignores them". If that's what Incitatus actually meant, I plead Nolo Contendere.

    He can’t explain why the second tower hit (WTC 2) came down before the first (WTC 1).
     
    To be sure, I cannot explain why the WTC2 came down before WTC1, but I did offer a couple of conjectures which I thought were plausible.

    He can’t explain why obscure WTC 7 came down at all, but urges “let Google be your friend.”
     
    Well, not quite. Only the most obtuse mind could doubt that WTC7 was intentionally demolished, and as I expect human agency to have played a role in that, there must have been a reason for it. I suggested that there were a number of political motives to destroy it, and suggested Googling for that information as it's readily available. I could have added that there were also criminal motives for its destruction, also available using Google.
    I further offered a couple of (what I thought were) plausible conjectures on why WTC7 came down so much later than WTC1 & 2.

    One can also look at #379 and #381 in the same thread where some of Incitatus' complaints were addressed.
    , @Jonathan Revusky

    He can’t explain how eyewitnesses onsite saw CGI planes with their naked eyes.
     
    What witnesses? How many of them? Can you name any of them?
  87. The Serpent’s Egg…

    “Of course, the stakes are sky-high: if 9/11 was an inside job, then the US government is not only absolutely illegitimate, it is in fact an occupation government controlled by either foreign elements, or traitors or both.”

    Read More
  88. @Ron Unz
    Well, I'm absolutely no expert on 9/11 but I've certainly become extremely suspicious of the official story over time. So I might as well contribute my own two cents, copied from another comment-thread.

    A few years ago I was very surprised to discover that in the immediate aftermath, Bin Laden told various inquiring journalists that he had had absolutely nothing to do with the attacks.

    Clearly, 9/11 represented by far the greatest and most successful terrorist attack in history, and if you’re a terrorist-mastermind, why in the world would you not want to take proper credit for such a tremendous achievement? Can anyone think of the last time a terrorist leader was unwilling to take credit for his successful attack?

    Yeah, here’s another to think about, that is potentially far more devastating…

    The alleged hijackers. They go to America in some cases well over a year before the operation. At least some were in flight schools to learn how to fly airplanes. These people were quite memorable and drew attention to themselves — apparently because they were such lousy students. And the reason for that, as far as I can tell, must be mostly that they did not know English hardly.

    For instance, the guy they say flew the plane into the Pentagon, Hani Hanjour, studied in some intensive English language program in California prior to going and studying how to fly a plane in Florida, I think.

    Just try to think about this from the (alleged) terrorists’ point of view. Imagine that you are part of a scheme to fly a plane into a building in China. So you go to China a year or two before the operation, and you enroll in a Chinese language academy to learn Chinese….

    …so that you can then go enroll in a flight school in China in which the language of instruction is Chinese.

    …so that you can fly the plane into a building in China…

    Think about that… This is exactly what they are claiming these Arab terrorists did!

    Who would ever do that? Would this ever occur to you? Why not just enroll in a flight school in your own country, where you already are fluent in the language of instruction, and then go to China at the last possible moment and fly the plane into the building?

    The operation, as described, doesn’t make any sense, does it? Who would ever concoct such a plan? Imagine yourself as one of the planners of the operation. Your operatives, by and large, cannot speak English, so you send them to America over a year before the operation, to first study English, so that they can learn to fly a plane in a flight school in which the language of instruction is English…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Miro23

    "The operation, as described, doesn't make any sense, does it? Who would ever concoct such a plan?"
     
    The essential point was to have "Arab Terrorists", with the best Florida investigation I've seen so far being Daniel Hopsicker's, "Welcome to Terrorland. https://www.amazon.com/Welcome-Terrorland-Mohamed-Cover-up-Florida/dp/0975290673

    The official story goes that Islamic fundamentalist trainee pilots sneaked unseen into Florida flight training schools where they learnt to fly the jets used on 9/11, which in itself immediately causes a problem since: 1) they weren't Islamic fundamentalists – they spend their time seriously drinking and whoring 2) they didn't sneak in unseen – they were highly visible and got red carpet treatment with regard to visas etc. 3) they were completely incapable of flying the 9/11 airliners at the speeds and on the trajectories seen on the day.

    , @Rurik

    Who would ever concoct such a plan? Imagine yourself as one of the planners of the operation. Your operatives, by and large, cannot speak English, so you send them to America over a year before the operation, to first study English, so that they can learn to fly a plane in a flight school in which the language of instruction is English…
     
    they made sure their patsies were well-groomed
  89. @anonymouse
    I feat that Jacues Sheete (=as in I don't know jackshit?) is misreading bonum as bonus.
    A bonus is a supplementary bonum, not the main reason. Cops always ask cui bono? (who is it that this was a good thing for?) when working on a case. The Truthers' answer is that the perps are the jooze or the bankers or whoever. They do not identify the main bonum that made (((them))) do it.

    Uh, FYI, all the “bon” words are related and I was playing around with them.

    Look up the Latin word, “bona” meaning “good” and get someone to ‘splain it to yi cuz it’s apparent you don’t know JS.

    Read More
  90. @Ron Unz
    Well, I'm absolutely no expert on 9/11 but I've certainly become extremely suspicious of the official story over time. So I might as well contribute my own two cents, copied from another comment-thread.

    A few years ago I was very surprised to discover that in the immediate aftermath, Bin Laden told various inquiring journalists that he had had absolutely nothing to do with the attacks.

    Clearly, 9/11 represented by far the greatest and most successful terrorist attack in history, and if you’re a terrorist-mastermind, why in the world would you not want to take proper credit for such a tremendous achievement? Can anyone think of the last time a terrorist leader was unwilling to take credit for his successful attack?

    Here are a couple of other good sources to keep your suspicions up.

    “Something strange happens to retired chiefs of the Israeli internal Security Service, Shin Bet.
    … once the chiefs of the service leave their jobs, they become spokesmen for peace. How come?”

    -Uri Avnery, Civil War
    http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1472915025

    “The whole system of [military involvement] was fabricated from falsehoods, and that’s what we’re operating under now.

    … it’s almost like we are exercising martial law over the whole world. We are. We are taking those precedents from our own martial law period over our own territory and applying it to the world. Someone who may be anti drone warfare in Afghanistan or Pakistan is guilty of a war crime, and gets targeted with a drone attack.”

    -Philip Weiss, The United States of Innocence — the worldview of Major Todd Pierce (retired), Part 2
    – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2016/09/innocence-worldview-retired/#sthash.yTsWJO6a.dpuf

    Read More
  91. @Seamus Padraig

    Maybe those fifteen guys figured it out too.
     
    Figured out what?

    Regular people are sometimes capable of incredible events.
     
    I'm not denying that the hijackers did their part. But as a truther, I insist that their actions alone, with no help from the inside, would not have been sufficient to bring down 3 WTC buildings with 2 airplanes.

    I’m not denying that the hijackers did their part.

    Hmm, well, that’s where we would part ways on this topic. I would certainly deny it. I do not see any real evidence that the people they claim hijacked the planes did so. It’s commonplace to point out that there is no proof that any of these guys were even on the planes. I think the fakery is beyond that though. I doubt that the flights in question even occurred.

    Regardless, it looks pretty clear that the alleged hijackers did not have the necessary skills to do what is claimed. In general, when you study these events, you see that the people who are claimed to be the perpetrators are just patsies. That is the case with the JFK assassination and the other main assassinations in the sixties, like MLK and RFK.

    But, getting back to 9/11, the whole hijacking story looks like a total red herring. I am largely convinced that no passenger planes hit any buildings, none were hijacked. Most likely the flights in question did not even take place.

    Read More
  92. @Boris
    And yet no one has yet responded to the post where I pointed out The Saker's misreading of the NIST report. Hm.

    that is the thing. he presents his arguments, you present yours. that is a healthy discussion. you may have “discredited” one of his sources/talking points, but what about the others?

    your point wasn’t the entire article you know.

    what about his others points? please counter them if you can.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Boris

    what about his others points? please counter them if you can.
     
    I certainly don't have the time or interest to go into depth on every point.
  93. @Boris
    And yet no one has yet responded to the post where I pointed out The Saker's misreading of the NIST report. Hm.

    Caution: Most of the posters are on irrational crusades in looney tune land. Don’t expect thoughtful attention.

    Hedges word may bring small comfort: “A public that can no longer distinguish between truth and fiction is left to interpret reality through illusion.”

    Read More
  94. @War for Blair Mountain
    9/11 was completely avoidable and here is how:


    If the 1965 Immigration Reform Act not been passed....



    If a National Origins Immigration Policy had been implemented that completely excluded all Muslims...


    1+1=2 easy...



    So why are Muslims being imported into the US?




    Answer:So they can vote f.....g Whitey into a racial minority on Nov 8 2016...pull the lever down for the old farting hairy Lesbian...

    Muslims – Vote for WHO?

    There are between 7 to 9 million Muslims in United States with only two Afro-American convert Congressmen. Contrary to that, there are less than five million Jews in the US with 10 Senators and 28 Congressmen – while 90% of the 535-member Congress backing the Zionist regime.

    “I want to tell you something very clear, don’t worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people control America, and the Americans know it,” – Ariel Sharon, Israeli prime minister to Shimon Peres, October 3, 2001- reported on Kol Yisrael radio.

    “Arabs will get their freedom only when the Americans get theirs (from Israel Lobby),” – professor Edward Said.

    “The Zionist power configuration’s primary loyalty is to the state of Israel and its policy is designed to colonize the US Congress – to the benefit of ‘mother country’ – Israel,” – professor James Petras.

    Can you dig it dude?

    https://rehmat1.com/2008/08/30/uncle-sam-israeli-colony/

    Read More
  95. @JVC
    Inflation is defined as an expansion of the money supply, and since 2009, the fed has expanded the money supply to extremes--hence hyperinflation. It has not yet shown up in everyday markets, but the current Dow average is a direct result of said hyper inflation. If, or when all that qe money shows up on the street (fed will not let that happen if they can manage to keep control) the dollar will be no different than Wiemar marks. Where the fed can loose control is the international money barons deciding enough of the USD as world reserve currency ---something that seems to be in the works now.

    LOL

    Read More
  96. I’m surprised no one’s yet mentioned (unless I missed it) Bollyn’s excellent series on whodunnit. He strikes me as a credible source. I’d appreciate any respectable info to the contrary. In other words, if the best ya got is some puerile character attack, fuggedaboudit.

    http://www.bollyn.com/solving-9-11-the-book#article_13946

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    I clicked on your link to see if it at least reminded me of whatever tentative conclusion I had formed about Bollyn. It didn't but it's mention of Julian Assange made me wonder how it could be that Wikileaks has nothing on any 9/11 consiracy. Not even some compromising or just ambiguous emails involving Cheney or Scooter Libby....
  97. @Ron Unz
    Well, I'm absolutely no expert on 9/11 but I've certainly become extremely suspicious of the official story over time. So I might as well contribute my own two cents, copied from another comment-thread.

    A few years ago I was very surprised to discover that in the immediate aftermath, Bin Laden told various inquiring journalists that he had had absolutely nothing to do with the attacks.

    Clearly, 9/11 represented by far the greatest and most successful terrorist attack in history, and if you’re a terrorist-mastermind, why in the world would you not want to take proper credit for such a tremendous achievement? Can anyone think of the last time a terrorist leader was unwilling to take credit for his successful attack?

    and if you’re a terrorist-mastermind, why in the world would you not want to take proper credit for such a tremendous achievement?

    True enough, although it may be that Khaled Sheikh Mohamed was the main executive mastermind, OBL being the inspirational figure.

    In any case According to Hamid Mir (OBL’s biographer who went to Afghanistan and interviewed members of Al-Qaeda):

    Privately they admitted everything. They said, they [who attacked on 9/11] are our brothers, but they said that “When the Americans kill Muslims in Sudan, they don’t admit that we are responsible for the attacks. When the Indians kill Kashmiris, they don’t admit that we have killed them. So now this is our turn. We have killed them and we are not going to admit that.
    My tape recorder was on and one very important al Qaeda leader he turned off my tape recorder and said, “Yes, I did it. Okay. Now play your tape recorder.” I played the tape recorder and he said “No, I’m not responsible”.

    Also:

    He believes that people in Pakistan and many other Arab countries are not ready to listen to objective analysis. “Even today, the majority of Pakistanis think 9/11 was not done by al- Qa’ida or Bin Laden – that it was Israel or the Jewish lobby,” he says. “It is very difficult for a Muslim and Pakistani journalist to write objectively on Bin Laden and al-Qa’ida. This is the problem.”

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/press/the-man-who-interviewed-osama-bin-laden-3-times-1639968.html

    Read More
    • Replies: @vetran
    Hamid Mir might be not the best source.
    A quick check on Hamid Mir wiki page confirmed my suspicions that he's not exempt from controversies. In Pakistan (as well as in the US) he is regarded as dishonest, mythomane and he is also accused to be an Indian agent or even working for the CIA.

    A few years ago I was very surprised to discover that in the immediate aftermath, Bin Laden told various inquiring journalists that he had had absolutely nothing to do with the attacks.

     

    Indeed. Here's OBL most comprehensive interview in the aftermath of the attacks in which he denies any involvement.
    http://web.archive.org/web/20081220063732/http://www.robert-fisk.com/usama_interview_ummat.htm
  98. @guest
    My question: why bother collapsing world trade center 7? People barely even noticed, nor do they much remember. Weren't the two towers and the Pentagon enough?

    Exactly. It the idea was to sell a fake idea that 1 and 2 were brought down by the airplane hits, bringing down 7 made no sense at all.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous

    bringing down 7 made no sense at all
     
    WTC 7 would have been unrentable even if left unscathed. The whole WTC complex would have been leveled and stripped to the ground for financial reasons even if the buildings hadn't collapsed on 9/11.
    , @Wizard of Oz
    But you lack imagination! Once you have had that sensible thought you should me able to wiggle your way out of it through a wormhole to a parallel universe. To start with you have to suppose that there was something there that needed to be destroyed, maybe a quid pro quo insurance scam with its owner Larry Silverstein and then there was Flight 93 that could have been meant to hit it, or be available for explanations though never intended to hit anything. Oh yes, you need the same fixed premise as well as imagination.
  99. @Wizard of Oz
    As good an explanation for his juvenile vapourings as any.

    The good explanation for your own illogical vapourings being intestinal gas?

    Read More
  100. anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Thirdeye
    Exactly. It the idea was to sell a fake idea that 1 and 2 were brought down by the airplane hits, bringing down 7 made no sense at all.

    bringing down 7 made no sense at all

    WTC 7 would have been unrentable even if left unscathed. The whole WTC complex would have been leveled and stripped to the ground for financial reasons even if the buildings hadn’t collapsed on 9/11.

    Read More
  101. @Robert Magill

    I’m not denying that the hijackers did their part. But as a truther, I insist that their actions alone, with no help from the inside, would not have been sufficient to bring down 3 WTC buildings with 2 airplanes.
     
    I've been curious about the structural integrity of those WTC buildings. 1, 2, and 7 fell but the other smaller ones were subsequently razed so I guess we'll never know.

    I’m curious about the structural integrity of those three buildings too. They had no problem standing tall and without incident for forty years but then all three collapsed within just a few hours of one another.

    Two were involved in plane crashes much smaller than those they were designed to withstand and WTC7 had only minor fires burning for a few hours. All three collapsed so quickly and in a manner that contradicts Newton’s Laws, specifically the law of the conservation of momentum, that the only logical conclusion is that the structural integrity was destroyed in a matter of seconds by controlled demolitions.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Robert Magill

    that the only logical conclusion is that the structural integrity was destroyed in a matter of seconds by controlled demolitions.
     
    “THE TRUTH is… anything you agree with and …faith makes it all possible”. https://robertmagill.wordpress.com/2016/09/10/faith-the-human-o-s-2/
  102. @Ron Unz
    Well, I'm absolutely no expert on 9/11 but I've certainly become extremely suspicious of the official story over time. So I might as well contribute my own two cents, copied from another comment-thread.

    A few years ago I was very surprised to discover that in the immediate aftermath, Bin Laden told various inquiring journalists that he had had absolutely nothing to do with the attacks.

    Clearly, 9/11 represented by far the greatest and most successful terrorist attack in history, and if you’re a terrorist-mastermind, why in the world would you not want to take proper credit for such a tremendous achievement? Can anyone think of the last time a terrorist leader was unwilling to take credit for his successful attack?

    Can anyone think of the last time a terrorist leader was unwilling to take credit for his successful attack?

    Yes, the major notorious terrorist attack in America which most closely preceded 9/11, the Olympics square bombing. And the major notorious terrorist attack in America which most closely followed 9/11, the Anthrax mailings.

    But anyway, Bin Laden did claim credit for the 9/11 attacks:
    http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/osama-bin-laden-911-confession-13506877

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ron Unz

    Yes, the major notorious terrorist attack in America which most closely preceded 9/11, the Olympics square bombing. And the major notorious terrorist attack in America which most closely followed 9/11, the Anthrax mailings.

    But anyway, Bin Laden did claim credit for the 9/11 attacks:
    http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/osama-bin-laden-911-confession-13506877
     
    Well, I certainly don't claim to be an expert on 9/11, but I'm *very* knowledgeable regarding the Anthrax attacks, and they were almost certainly a false-flag action by one or more individuals in America, and had absolutely nothing to do with foreign terrorism (indeed that quickly became the official government/FBI verdict). In fact, if you spend thirty minutes googling around, you can easily determine the name of the likely culprit. Or you can read these articles, in which the issues are discussed:

    http://www.unz.com/article/our-american-pravda/

    http://www.unz.com/article/the-anthrax-files/

    As for the supposed Bin Laden confession, isn't that one of those videos that almost everyone agrees is faked, including Bin Laden intelligence experts? Right after the attacks, he was interviewed by journalists who'd dealt with him, and told them he had no connection, which seems much more solid evidence to me. I'm also *very* suspicious that those interviews were never reported in the Western MSM, so I only found out about them something like a dozen years later.

    And that fact that you're spouting off totally ignorant nonsense on the Anthrax attacks hardly strengthens your credibility on matters less familiar to me...
  103. @Astuteobservor II
    that is the thing. he presents his arguments, you present yours. that is a healthy discussion. you may have "discredited" one of his sources/talking points, but what about the others?

    your point wasn't the entire article you know.

    what about his others points? please counter them if you can.

    what about his others points? please counter them if you can.

    I certainly don’t have the time or interest to go into depth on every point.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Astuteobservor II
    and there we have it. this calls into question the intent of your original comment/question.
  104. @Ron Unz
    Well, I'm absolutely no expert on 9/11 but I've certainly become extremely suspicious of the official story over time. So I might as well contribute my own two cents, copied from another comment-thread.

    A few years ago I was very surprised to discover that in the immediate aftermath, Bin Laden told various inquiring journalists that he had had absolutely nothing to do with the attacks.

    Clearly, 9/11 represented by far the greatest and most successful terrorist attack in history, and if you’re a terrorist-mastermind, why in the world would you not want to take proper credit for such a tremendous achievement? Can anyone think of the last time a terrorist leader was unwilling to take credit for his successful attack?

    Shortly after 9/11 the Taliban offered to surrender OBL on condition that evidence was provided as to his involvement. None was provided and he was not handed over to the US.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky

    Shortly after 9/11 the Taliban offered to surrender OBL on condition that evidence was provided as to his involvement. None was provided and he was not handed over to the US.
     
    Yeah, this is a very important point for people to understand. Afghanistan is a sovereign nation-state. As a matter of fact, the USA and Afghanistan do not have an extradition treaty, or at least, there was none in place at the time of 9/11. However, even if they did have an extradition treaty, when a nation requests extradition under the treaty, they MUST PROVIDE EVIDENCE!

    The idea being put out was that Osama Bin Laden was guilty simply because the U.S. government said so and there was no onus on the U.S. authorities to provide any evidence whatsoever. Not only was that idea put out then, but it is constantly put out by the various shill shit eaters on these threads.

    You ask them what the basic evidence is and they invariably say that the evidence for the government story is the government story. One of these shit eaters, "Boris" who is here on this page, I asked him what the evidence was and one of the things he said was that Mohamed had puchased plane tickets. That was among the evidence he cited when I asked him what the strongest evidence available for the official story was.

    I asked the Wizard of Oz, who is apparently, a lawyer down in Australia, whether, in his view, this constituted evidence and he refused to answer the question.

    The simplest approach to debating the shit eaters is simply to ask them what the evidence for the official story. They typically then self-destruct. Asking a shit eater for evidence whatever official bullshit story is approximately like waving kryptonite at Superman.
    , @Wizard of Oz
    My recollection of what I have read is that Mullah Omar loyally supported his Islamist guest Osama bin Laden on the basis that he was assured 9/11 wasnt the work of Al Qaeda (or maybe bin Laden) but that he came to be pretty pissed off with ObL lying about it which no doubt was one reason why ObL moved to Pakistan.

    It is too glib to suggest that all that was required was "evidence". Suppose you are a priest and your brother priest swears to you that he is not guilty of some crime. Do you give him up to the often corrupt police because they produce some circumstantial evidence which, if not fabricated, could mean that your friend was guilty? Obviously no one had a smoking gun and recordings which couldn't be denied or explained away.

  105. @Thirdeye
    Exactly. It the idea was to sell a fake idea that 1 and 2 were brought down by the airplane hits, bringing down 7 made no sense at all.

    But you lack imagination! Once you have had that sensible thought you should me able to wiggle your way out of it through a wormhole to a parallel universe. To start with you have to suppose that there was something there that needed to be destroyed, maybe a quid pro quo insurance scam with its owner Larry Silverstein and then there was Flight 93 that could have been meant to hit it, or be available for explanations though never intended to hit anything. Oh yes, you need the same fixed premise as well as imagination.

    Read More
  106. @Incitatus
    Erebus claims the planes were CGI (computer generated images) and no genuine planes flew into the towers. He can’t explain how eyewitnesses onsite saw CGI planes with their naked eyes. He can’t explain what happened to the plane crews and passengers. When confronted by people who know victim families personally, he retreats into disbelief. He can’t explain why the second tower hit (WTC 2) came down before the first (WTC 1). He can’t explain why obscure WTC 7 came down at all, but urges “let Google be your friend.”

    See #304 if you want an adventurous romp in fantasy land:
    http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-how-the-cia-invented-conspiracy-theories/

    Erebus is a preening idiot savant, without the savant part.

    Yet in one short post on this thread Erebus managed to contribute more actual wisdom than in all of your own endless contributions of disinformation.

    Read More
  107. Listen SFB, the Jews, the zionists, the Mossad, whatever, did it.

    Get over it, before we get over you.

    Read More
  108. HAHAHAHAHA I did two seconds of web searching to find that the “Open Chemical Physics Journal” where the Thermite study was supposedly published is

    1) a pay-to-publish-on-the-web scam based out of, get this, the United Arab Emirates.
    (And within the UAE they couldn’t even spring for a PO box in Dubai or Abu Dhabi, instead they got one in Sharjah.)

    2) something that got between one and three articles submitted… per year.

    Actually, I should more accurately say it was those things, because it has been discontinued. You have to be pretty fucking disreputable to be shut down in the already disreputable world of “open access” self-publishing.

    Lol.

    Read More
  109. @biz

    Can anyone think of the last time a terrorist leader was unwilling to take credit for his successful attack?
     
    Yes, the major notorious terrorist attack in America which most closely preceded 9/11, the Olympics square bombing. And the major notorious terrorist attack in America which most closely followed 9/11, the Anthrax mailings.

    But anyway, Bin Laden did claim credit for the 9/11 attacks:
    http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/osama-bin-laden-911-confession-13506877

    Yes, the major notorious terrorist attack in America which most closely preceded 9/11, the Olympics square bombing. And the major notorious terrorist attack in America which most closely followed 9/11, the Anthrax mailings.

    But anyway, Bin Laden did claim credit for the 9/11 attacks:
    http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/osama-bin-laden-911-confession-13506877

    Well, I certainly don’t claim to be an expert on 9/11, but I’m *very* knowledgeable regarding the Anthrax attacks, and they were almost certainly a false-flag action by one or more individuals in America, and had absolutely nothing to do with foreign terrorism (indeed that quickly became the official government/FBI verdict). In fact, if you spend thirty minutes googling around, you can easily determine the name of the likely culprit. Or you can read these articles, in which the issues are discussed:

    http://www.unz.com/article/our-american-pravda/

    http://www.unz.com/article/the-anthrax-files/

    As for the supposed Bin Laden confession, isn’t that one of those videos that almost everyone agrees is faked, including Bin Laden intelligence experts? Right after the attacks, he was interviewed by journalists who’d dealt with him, and told them he had no connection, which seems much more solid evidence to me. I’m also *very* suspicious that those interviews were never reported in the Western MSM, so I only found out about them something like a dozen years later.

    And that fact that you’re spouting off totally ignorant nonsense on the Anthrax attacks hardly strengthens your credibility on matters less familiar to me…

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    I always thought that the anthrax letters were meant to terrorize media and politicians that potentially could challenge the official version of 9/11 or not cooperate with the administration. Even the National Enquirer was put on notice.

    I also suspect that the 2002 DC sniper attacks were to terrorize Congress to pass a legislation opening the road to war in Iraq which was being debated during that time except for weekends when the snipers also were taking times off. Possibly related to it was George Tenet's fear of him being assassinated (this about Tenet was in New Yorker).
    , @James Kabala
    I think you are reading connotations into Biz's comment that aren't there. He (or she - hard to tell with these pseudonymous handles) didn't say the anthrax letters were foreign terrorism - he said they were terrorism. Just as he accurately described Eric Rudolph as a terrorist. Terrorists do not have to be foreign!
    , @biz
    a) You had originally asked:

    Can anyone think of the last time a terrorist leader was unwilling to take credit for his successful attack?
     
    Nothing was specified about whether the terrorism was 'domestic' or 'foreign.' The Anthrax mailings fit the bill as asked.

    b) Just because a terrorist attack is likely domestic or not related to Islamists does not make it a 'false flag.' There are plenty of domestic groups with various agendas, and weird ideological and/or deranged individuals, and these are the likely source of the anthrax mailings.

    c) Bin Laden and other people affiliated with Al Qaeda have claimed credit for 9/11 on a number of occasions. If you don't like the videos found right after 9/11, there is the Bin Laden tape released (purposefully by Al Qaeda) in 2004:
    http://www.foxnews.com/story/2004/10/30/bin-laden-claims-responsibility-for-11.html
  110. @Ron Unz
    Well, I'm absolutely no expert on 9/11 but I've certainly become extremely suspicious of the official story over time. So I might as well contribute my own two cents, copied from another comment-thread.

    A few years ago I was very surprised to discover that in the immediate aftermath, Bin Laden told various inquiring journalists that he had had absolutely nothing to do with the attacks.

    Clearly, 9/11 represented by far the greatest and most successful terrorist attack in history, and if you’re a terrorist-mastermind, why in the world would you not want to take proper credit for such a tremendous achievement? Can anyone think of the last time a terrorist leader was unwilling to take credit for his successful attack?

    if you’re a terrorist-mastermind, why in the world would you not want to take proper credit for such a tremendous achievement?

    In the case of Bin Laden, probably to sow doubt so that there would not be international support for invading Afghanistan. In 2004 he released a video tape taking credit for 9/11 and explaining why Al Qaeda did it.

    Read More
  111. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Boris

    The purported cell phone calls made from the hijacked planes on 9/11 would not have been possible.
     
    Most of the calls were made from Air Phones. The few that weren't were made toward the end of flights at low altitude when cell phone calls would have been possible.

    This is another example of truthers rewriting the evidence.

    Deena Burnett reported that she received cell phone calls from her husband Tom on Flight 93 which would not have been possible:

    http://www.911truth.org/griffin-response-paul-zarembka-critique-phone-call-fakery/

    Deena told the FBI on the day of the attacks that she had received “three to five cellular phone calls” from her husband, Tom Burnett, calling from United 93. 4 “Only one of the calls,” the FBI report added, “did not show on the caller identification as she was on the line with another call.” 5 The FBI later indicated that she had received (only) three calls. If we accept that as a correct statement of fact, then Deena’s testimony would have been that her Caller ID showed two of the calls she received from her husband to have been from his cell phone.

    And yet, it is now generally agreed, her husband could not have made cell phone calls from United 93, which was at the time over 40,000 feet in the air. And when in 2006, the FBI’s report on phone calls from the 9/11 planes became public in relation to the Moussaoui trial, this report said of Tom Burnett that his calls were made from seat-back phones. The FBI’s report thereby avoided the problem of endorsing technologically impossible phone calls.

    Flight 77 was not equipped with Air Phones, and there were purported cell phone calls made from Flight 77 which would not have been possible:

    According to her husband — Solicitor General Theodore “Ted” Olson — she had called him twice from American 77, with the first call lasting “about one (1) minute” 19 and the second one “two or three or four minutes.” 20

    It appears, however, that this story could not have been true, for several reasons. In the first place, the story told by Ted Olson, as purportedly told to him by his wife — the story according to which three or four slight men armed with only knives and box-cutters held off 60 passengers and crew members — was extremely implausible.

    Second, there seemed to be no way that Barbara Olson could have made calls from American 77: Her flight at the time of the calls was too high for cell phone calls, and the FBI, in any case, indicated in 2004 that there were no cell phone calls from this flight. (To repeat: The FBI said: “All of the calls from Flight 77 were made via the onboard airphone system.” 21 ) The Boeing 757s equipped for American Airlines, moreover, evidently had no onboard phones for use by passengers and crew. These facts, especially when combined with the implausibility of the Olson story, had provided strong reasons to doubt the truth of that story prior to 2006. But in that year, the FBI’s telephone evidence about American Flight 77 was made public as part of the FBI’s evidence for the Moussaoui trial, and it said, in effect, that the Olson story could not have been true: Whereas Ted Olson had said that he had received two calls from his wife, one of which lasted about a minute and the second of which lasted at least twice as long, the FBI report said that Barbara Olson attempted (only) one call, that it was “unconnected,” and that it (therefore) lasted “0 seconds.” 22

    Read More
    • Replies: @Boris

    The Boeing 757s equipped for American Airlines, moreover, evidently had no onboard phones for use by passengers and crew.
     
    This, for example, is wrong. The phones in question existed and were in the process of being deactivated, but there is no evidence they were deactivated on 9/11 in the plane in question.
    , @Wizard of Oz
    A long quote from someone of no known credibility doesn't inspire me to follow it up but it does strike me as unlikely that those planes would have spent much time at 40,000 feet if any.
  112. CIA trolls hve been unleashed on all articles revealing the truth everywhere, not just 9/11: Ukraine, Syria, etc. Such an obvious lie as the official theory is supposed to be believed because they call all those who know it is a lie fabricated for Israel and USA hegemonic purposes “lunatics, conspiracy theorists, fringe maniacs”. It is a well-known fact that to discredit the enemy with personal attacks makes weak minds fall for a lie, moreover it is backed by their government’s authority.

    Read More
  113. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @War for Blair Mountain
    Boris

    There is simpler way to expose the lies of the Truthers. Who were the wives of doomed passengers speaking to? The men on the passenger jet that crashed in Shanksville were speaking to their wives moments before the ran up front to take out the highjackers. But according to 9/11 Truthers, these were all actors on the payroll of the Bush Family.

    I consider the 9/11 Truthers to be as Treasonous as the Neocons.

    Deena Burnett reported that she received cell phone calls from her husband Tom on Flight 93 which would not have been possible:

    Barbara Olson is purported to have called her husband from Flight 77, which was not equipped with Air Phones. Cell phone calls from Flight 77 would not have been possible when she purportedly called.

    Read More
  114. Here is a newer perspective from my blog:

    Feb 2, 2016 – The 9-11 Hoax

    As yet more proof, the massive skyscraper fire in Dubai. This recent fire was far larger and burned far longer than that in WTC-7 on 9-11. For those unaware, this was the third World Trade Center to collapse on 9-11. It was not hit by an airplane, but fire erupted, supposedly caused by debris from the twin towers that collapsed over 100 yards away. The Dubai tower is 63 stories with a much narrower base than the 47-story WTC-7. Yet it did not collapse, not one floor! Soon after the fire, the building was partially reopened and people who lived in condos there were allowed to return home.

    Moreover, no one announced that its structure was weakened so the entire building must be torn down, and repairs began just a few days later. There was no lengthy safety inspection with x-rays of all steel structural beams to see if any were weakened by the fire. I’d love to see a press conference with engineers explaining the refurbishment plan. A snide reporter could ask why they are certain that the burning furniture and wall coverings did not weaken the building’s steel structure. It would be great to hear these high rise engineer experts explain that it is impossible for the low temperatures produced by the fire to weaken the steel beams.

    I wondered if others had noticed, and yes, one even made a nice short video.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=496vFCbQJw4

    Read More
  115. @Boris

    what about his others points? please counter them if you can.
     
    I certainly don't have the time or interest to go into depth on every point.

    and there we have it. this calls into question the intent of your original comment/question.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Boris
    Your comment makes no sense. Apparently you think that if someone doesn't want to spend hours researching every claim in an article then....that person is dishonest or something? What a bizarre thing to believe.
  116. The first time I encountered The Saker was during the 2014 Donbas massacre/war, when the MSM went deaf and blind as soon as the bloody phase of the “ATO” began so I was looking for reliable sources of information. I don’t remember why but eventually I discarded him and decided to follow some other sources. Time is limited.

    Still, I was glad to see him commenting on this website, which I also found recently. His analyses of Russia and its military looked very interesting. However, the other day I visited his website and had to leave it as soon as I read his claim that the Anglozionists (or something like that) were conducting a massive scheme of poisoning ethnic Russian schoolgirls all over Ukraine.

    That the Ukrainians are committing a massacre against their own civilians is beyond doubt. HRW, Amnesty International and the UN Office for Human Rights have released horrendous (and scarcely known) reports on this subject. However, I am left wondering how much I should trust from Saker’s insights about Russian affairs. Not much, I reckon.

    Read More
  117. And more from my blog:

    Apr 18, 2015 – This is a Debris Field

    What happens when someone crashes a large airliner at a high rate of speed, like the recent Germanwings disaster in the Alps? You end up with thousands of items and hundreds of body parts scattered about, as this video shows.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8yb1GTgW_Y

    This happens at all such crashes, unless you believe the official story of 9-11 that everything pulverized and disappeared without a single body part to be found. I don’t know what happened on 9-11, but any sane person who watches this news video (and others linked there) about the site in Pennsylvania where we are told Flight 93 crashed concludes that a large airliner did not crash there.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS79pgDxYPQ

    Read More
  118. @Anonymous
    Deena Burnett reported that she received cell phone calls from her husband Tom on Flight 93 which would not have been possible:

    http://www.911truth.org/griffin-response-paul-zarembka-critique-phone-call-fakery/

    Deena told the FBI on the day of the attacks that she had received “three to five cellular phone calls” from her husband, Tom Burnett, calling from United 93. 4 “Only one of the calls,” the FBI report added, “did not show on the caller identification as she was on the line with another call.” 5 The FBI later indicated that she had received (only) three calls. If we accept that as a correct statement of fact, then Deena’s testimony would have been that her Caller ID showed two of the calls she received from her husband to have been from his cell phone.

    And yet, it is now generally agreed, her husband could not have made cell phone calls from United 93, which was at the time over 40,000 feet in the air. And when in 2006, the FBI’s report on phone calls from the 9/11 planes became public in relation to the Moussaoui trial, this report said of Tom Burnett that his calls were made from seat-back phones. The FBI’s report thereby avoided the problem of endorsing technologically impossible phone calls.
     
    Flight 77 was not equipped with Air Phones, and there were purported cell phone calls made from Flight 77 which would not have been possible:

    According to her husband — Solicitor General Theodore “Ted” Olson — she had called him twice from American 77, with the first call lasting “about one (1) minute” 19 and the second one “two or three or four minutes.” 20

    It appears, however, that this story could not have been true, for several reasons. In the first place, the story told by Ted Olson, as purportedly told to him by his wife — the story according to which three or four slight men armed with only knives and box-cutters held off 60 passengers and crew members — was extremely implausible.

    Second, there seemed to be no way that Barbara Olson could have made calls from American 77: Her flight at the time of the calls was too high for cell phone calls, and the FBI, in any case, indicated in 2004 that there were no cell phone calls from this flight. (To repeat: The FBI said: “All of the calls from Flight 77 were made via the onboard airphone system.” 21 ) The Boeing 757s equipped for American Airlines, moreover, evidently had no onboard phones for use by passengers and crew. These facts, especially when combined with the implausibility of the Olson story, had provided strong reasons to doubt the truth of that story prior to 2006. But in that year, the FBI’s telephone evidence about American Flight 77 was made public as part of the FBI’s evidence for the Moussaoui trial, and it said, in effect, that the Olson story could not have been true: Whereas Ted Olson had said that he had received two calls from his wife, one of which lasted about a minute and the second of which lasted at least twice as long, the FBI report said that Barbara Olson attempted (only) one call, that it was “unconnected,” and that it (therefore) lasted “0 seconds.” 22
     

    The Boeing 757s equipped for American Airlines, moreover, evidently had no onboard phones for use by passengers and crew.

    This, for example, is wrong. The phones in question existed and were in the process of being deactivated, but there is no evidence they were deactivated on 9/11 in the plane in question.

    Read More
  119. @Astuteobservor II
    and there we have it. this calls into question the intent of your original comment/question.

    Your comment makes no sense. Apparently you think that if someone doesn’t want to spend hours researching every claim in an article then….that person is dishonest or something? What a bizarre thing to believe.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Astuteobservor II
    if you are not willing to engage, why even bother in the first place?

    you called the author and his article into question with just a single point out of his entire article. when asked to seriously provide counter points, you feign lack of interest.

    how many comments have you posted thus far just for this article? with your "lack of interest"?

    talk about bizarre/contradicting behavior.

  120. @folktruther
    because building 7 had already been filled with explosives, and they couldn't allow anyone to examine it. It might have been the target of the plane shot down in Pennsylvania.

    That just pushes the question v back one step: why target building 7 with a plane? Wouldn’t you get more out of flying it into the Capitol, for instance?

    Read More
  121. @Ron Unz

    Yes, the major notorious terrorist attack in America which most closely preceded 9/11, the Olympics square bombing. And the major notorious terrorist attack in America which most closely followed 9/11, the Anthrax mailings.

    But anyway, Bin Laden did claim credit for the 9/11 attacks:
    http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/osama-bin-laden-911-confession-13506877
     
    Well, I certainly don't claim to be an expert on 9/11, but I'm *very* knowledgeable regarding the Anthrax attacks, and they were almost certainly a false-flag action by one or more individuals in America, and had absolutely nothing to do with foreign terrorism (indeed that quickly became the official government/FBI verdict). In fact, if you spend thirty minutes googling around, you can easily determine the name of the likely culprit. Or you can read these articles, in which the issues are discussed:

    http://www.unz.com/article/our-american-pravda/

    http://www.unz.com/article/the-anthrax-files/

    As for the supposed Bin Laden confession, isn't that one of those videos that almost everyone agrees is faked, including Bin Laden intelligence experts? Right after the attacks, he was interviewed by journalists who'd dealt with him, and told them he had no connection, which seems much more solid evidence to me. I'm also *very* suspicious that those interviews were never reported in the Western MSM, so I only found out about them something like a dozen years later.

    And that fact that you're spouting off totally ignorant nonsense on the Anthrax attacks hardly strengthens your credibility on matters less familiar to me...

    I always thought that the anthrax letters were meant to terrorize media and politicians that potentially could challenge the official version of 9/11 or not cooperate with the administration. Even the National Enquirer was put on notice.

    I also suspect that the 2002 DC sniper attacks were to terrorize Congress to pass a legislation opening the road to war in Iraq which was being debated during that time except for weekends when the snipers also were taking times off. Possibly related to it was George Tenet’s fear of him being assassinated (this about Tenet was in New Yorker).

    Read More
  122. @Boris
    Your comment makes no sense. Apparently you think that if someone doesn't want to spend hours researching every claim in an article then....that person is dishonest or something? What a bizarre thing to believe.

    if you are not willing to engage, why even bother in the first place?

    you called the author and his article into question with just a single point out of his entire article. when asked to seriously provide counter points, you feign lack of interest.

    how many comments have you posted thus far just for this article? with your “lack of interest”?

    talk about bizarre/contradicting behavior.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Boris

    how many comments have you posted thus far just for this article? with your “lack of interest”?
     
    I have the amount of interest I have and not the amount of interest you want me to have. This is a reality you must come to grips with.
    , @Boris

    if you are not willing to engage, why even bother in the first place?
     
    And I don't see the point of continuing if The Saker and others cannot admit their error. Why would you intentionally leave an obvious error in your article? Anyway, I doubt that any correction will happen.
    , @ogunsiron
    just a single point out of his entire article. when asked to seriously provide counter points, you feign lack of interest
    ----
    Boris's remark was pretty on point. "North face free falling" does not imply "whole floor free falling". If one can start from "North face free falling" and arrive to "whole floor free falling" in a logical, step by step manner, using points contained in that NIST article, let's see the reasoning.

    If you read a complex article in which one of the important points is "since the dog reads chinese, it must have been able to read the signs the warning signs on the walls of...", it's reasonable to ask the author to explain what exactly they mean by "since the dog reads chinese" and to stop reading the article, for the time being.
  123. @This Is Our Home
    Even Saker himself does not believe this silly article. His hyperbolic praise for a handful of weirdos is hilarious, especially his use of Wikipedia stats on world opinion, especially shame avoiding Muslim opinion, to claim some sort of traction in the US lol. What he has done is found a rich seam of loons and paranoid schizophrenics whom he has realised he can mine for cash for the rest of his life. It is the L L Ron Hubbard retirement plan.

    To This is Our Home (which says so much) :

    Saker doesn’t believe what he just wrote?? What makes you think he went through the trouble in writing such a well research article he “doesn’t believe”? Toward the end of the article he states:

    “Likewise, the external observations of the collapse of WTC 1, WTC2 and WTC7 clearly show that these buildings were brought down by controlled demolition, and that by itself is sufficient to demand a new investigation. The fact that the 9/11 Truth movement cannot explain every detail of what took place on that day cannot be held against it. Now that we have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that controlled demolitions did bring down these buildings, it would be the task of the new independent investigation to, well, investigate and explain how what we observed happened.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Quartermaster
    I have watched the film of the collapse of the two main towers repeatedly and have come to the same conclusion every time. The fire heated the steel weakening it and in combination with the damaged structure on the side of impact, the buildings collapsed toward the impact side. Lower floors collapse as a result of the increased forces beyond the safety factor of the building design.

    I can't speak to the smaller tower as I've never seen any film on that, but asserting the two taller buildings were brought down by controlled demolition is silly.

    I am, by the way, a Professional Engineer with a degree in Civil Engineering.
  124. @Incitatus
    Erebus claims the planes were CGI (computer generated images) and no genuine planes flew into the towers. He can’t explain how eyewitnesses onsite saw CGI planes with their naked eyes. He can’t explain what happened to the plane crews and passengers. When confronted by people who know victim families personally, he retreats into disbelief. He can’t explain why the second tower hit (WTC 2) came down before the first (WTC 1). He can’t explain why obscure WTC 7 came down at all, but urges “let Google be your friend.”

    See #304 if you want an adventurous romp in fantasy land:
    http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-how-the-cia-invented-conspiracy-theories/

    Erebus is a preening idiot savant, without the savant part.

    In case anyone takes Incitatus’ claims at face value instead of going to the link, I offer these examples of a troll’s work:

    Erebus claims the planes were CGI (computer generated images) and no genuine planes flew into the towers.

    Though I personally don’t believe commercial jets hit the buildings, I specifically avoided that claim. I said that we have footage of only one plane, and that the gross anomalies in said footage are best explained with reference to CGI than by any other method.

    He can’t explain how eyewitnesses onsite saw CGI planes with their naked eyes.

    I didn’t address that topic at all in #304.

    He can’t explain what happened to the plane crews and passengers.

    I didn’t address that topic at all in #304 either.

    When confronted by people who know victim families personally, he retreats into disbelief.

    Let’s correct that to, “When confronted by anonymous internet entities claiming extraordinary, but irrelevant relationships, he ignores them”. If that’s what Incitatus actually meant, I plead Nolo Contendere.

    He can’t explain why the second tower hit (WTC 2) came down before the first (WTC 1).

    To be sure, I cannot explain why the WTC2 came down before WTC1, but I did offer a couple of conjectures which I thought were plausible.

    He can’t explain why obscure WTC 7 came down at all, but urges “let Google be your friend.”

    Well, not quite. Only the most obtuse mind could doubt that WTC7 was intentionally demolished, and as I expect human agency to have played a role in that, there must have been a reason for it. I suggested that there were a number of political motives to destroy it, and suggested Googling for that information as it’s readily available. I could have added that there were also criminal motives for its destruction, also available using Google.
    I further offered a couple of (what I thought were) plausible conjectures on why WTC7 came down so much later than WTC1 & 2.

    One can also look at #379 and #381 in the same thread where some of Incitatus’ complaints were addressed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Boris

    Though I personally don’t believe commercial jets hit the buildings
     
    This is an absolutely insane thing to believe.

    I said that we have footage of only one plane
     
    We have footage of two planes.

    I didn’t address that topic at all in #304.
     
    True. You still can't explain it. There is zero evidence for it. There is copious evidence against it.

    Only the most obtuse mind could doubt that WTC7 was intentionally demolished
     
    Says the guy who believes an insane CGI theory.

    The truther continuum is interesting, and is something seen in other conspiracy theories. There is a distribution of theories that gets progressively more bizarre:

    Level
    I. Plausible, scant evidence.......................Government knows about 9/11 plot, allows is to happen.
    II. Plausible, no evidence...........................Government plans and executes attacks.
    III. Barely plausible, evidence against......Pentagon Missile, controlled demolition, fake calls.
    IV. Implausible, evidence against.............CGI planes, holograms, WTC nukes.

    To be clear, blaming the attacks on aliens, lizard men or Canada would be closer to level III than level IV. That's how divorced from reality many of you are. There's essentially no hope of redemption.

  125. @Intelligent Dasein
    Your comment, gold box and all, is exactly the kind of oblivious, preachy, self-righteous bullshit that proves what the Truthers are really all about---vanity and anarchy. Truther's beliefs are a method of self-aggrandizement that allows them to feel superior to the rest of the world; that is to say, to the great unwashed masses whom they accuse of believing "the official version," regardless of what such people actually believe or whether they even exist (for the facts do not matter; it's all about the melodrama with you, anyway), and whom you libel as cowards, ignorant, government shills, "sheeple," and other choice terms from your little catalog of epithets.

    This act of deprecation is your real objective. It provides the little power-fixes, little dopamine rushes, that allow you to feel oh-so dominant and in-the-know. "Look how much better I am than all these ignorant sheeple," you say to yourself. It also provides you with every excuse you need to ignore your civic responsibilities and mock society's institutions whenever doing so would be convenient for you. After all, society is unjust and all those institutions are just serving the deep state and shilling for the "official version." You, sir, have found a civic loophole. You get to enjoy the benefits of living in the commonwealth while denigrating and flouting it at the same time. You're just a Jacobin, a Bolshevik, another liberal revolutionary cloaked in a different ideology.

    But let's look at your specific claim the majority of people simply cannot accept "what really happened" on 9/11 because that would entail the psychologically impossible task of acknowledging that---gasp!---their own government murdered 3,000 people in a false flag incident that set the backdrop for the roll-out of the War on Terror.

    What kind of a mouth-breathing idiot do you have to be to make such a claim? It simply doesn't make any sense. Even a cursory glance at history reveals that governments have been slaughtering people on a large scale, for all kinds of reasons, since the very beginning of time, and yet that fact seems to have been acknowledged without any attendant epidemic of cognitive dissonance. Why should it be any more difficult to believe that our government would kill 3000 Americans in our own time if it suited its purposes? Given the fact that the US deep state is one of the most corrupt, feckless, and downright byzantine organizations to ever exist, I have no trouble at all believing such a thing, except for the minor fact that it did not happen. I certainly am not impeded by any unrealistic, juvenile hangups regarding the sanctity of the federal government.

    But I suspect that you are. I suspect that you think , somewhere deep inside, that whatever powers ought to be governing the affairs of men---be it the Constitution "as written," or some sort of Randian libertarian fantasy---really are pure and perfect as the driven snow, and therefore it required an act of unsurpassed dastardliness to obscure them: enter 9/11 "Truth." I suspect that you think yourself to be quite above reproach, and that your adherence to 9/11 "Truth" gives you a sense of permanent absolution from all past and future guilt. And I further suspect that the nefarious plots and subterfuges you project upon The Powers That Be are precisely the sort of acts you yourself would commit if you held their high station. Your feigned moral indignation at them is really just a histrionic facade, as moral indignation always is. You don't hate them. You don't even really fear them. You covet them. Your only outrage arises from the fact that someone else got to do them and you did not. Therefore belief in "Truth" is an existential necessity of yours. It is the sacrament by which you hypostatically unite yourself with everything you desire. All thought is but the mirror image of the thinker.

    But in reality it is all a lie. 9/11 was not a false flag. It really was a terrorist attack, the fact that the government responded with a hamfisted acceleration of the security state, and by bombing the Middle East into a quagmire, notwithstanding.

    Congratulations on a stellar rant. Wildly off the mark, but a hell of a volley. I hope it didn’t leave any permanent stains.

    I find only one thing I can address. To whit:

    Why should it be any more difficult to believe that our government would kill 3000 Americans in our own time if it suited its purposes? Given the fact that the US deep state is one of the most corrupt, feckless, and downright byzantine organizations to ever exist, I have no trouble at all believing such a thing, except for the minor fact that it did not happen.

    To which I have 3 questions:
    1. What happens if you remove that “minor fact”? Would you go Che Guevara?
    2. What would you do if confronted by irrefutable evidence? Would you be able to change your mind?
    3. What would that evidence have to look like for you to find it irrefutable?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    On CGI would you care to address the matters raised in #140.
  126. @biz
    I would throw that accusation of being paid to blog by some foreign entity - perhaps the Iranian regime, or the Qataris - right back at you, except I know that the truth is almost certainly much more pathetic than that - that you are an entirely voluntarily ideological cuckhold for Jihadists against the West.

    So a “cuckhold (sic) for Jihadists against the West” is someone who points to the close cooperation between Israeli agents and the world’s leading sponsor of salafist terror, Saudi Arabia? Nice try, hasbara boy.

    Read More
  127. […] Written by TheSaker; Originally appeared at TheUnzReview […]

    Read More
  128. @NoseytheDuke
    Shortly after 9/11 the Taliban offered to surrender OBL on condition that evidence was provided as to his involvement. None was provided and he was not handed over to the US.

    Shortly after 9/11 the Taliban offered to surrender OBL on condition that evidence was provided as to his involvement. None was provided and he was not handed over to the US.

    Yeah, this is a very important point for people to understand. Afghanistan is a sovereign nation-state. As a matter of fact, the USA and Afghanistan do not have an extradition treaty, or at least, there was none in place at the time of 9/11. However, even if they did have an extradition treaty, when a nation requests extradition under the treaty, they MUST PROVIDE EVIDENCE!

    The idea being put out was that Osama Bin Laden was guilty simply because the U.S. government said so and there was no onus on the U.S. authorities to provide any evidence whatsoever. Not only was that idea put out then, but it is constantly put out by the various shill shit eaters on these threads.

    You ask them what the basic evidence is and they invariably say that the evidence for the government story is the government story. One of these shit eaters, “Boris” who is here on this page, I asked him what the evidence was and one of the things he said was that Mohamed had puchased plane tickets. That was among the evidence he cited when I asked him what the strongest evidence available for the official story was.

    I asked the Wizard of Oz, who is apparently, a lawyer down in Australia, whether, in his view, this constituted evidence and he refused to answer the question.

    The simplest approach to debating the shit eaters is simply to ask them what the evidence for the official story. They typically then self-destruct. Asking a shit eater for evidence whatever official bullshit story is approximately like waving kryptonite at Superman.

    Read More
  129. @Incitatus
    Erebus claims the planes were CGI (computer generated images) and no genuine planes flew into the towers. He can’t explain how eyewitnesses onsite saw CGI planes with their naked eyes. He can’t explain what happened to the plane crews and passengers. When confronted by people who know victim families personally, he retreats into disbelief. He can’t explain why the second tower hit (WTC 2) came down before the first (WTC 1). He can’t explain why obscure WTC 7 came down at all, but urges “let Google be your friend.”

    See #304 if you want an adventurous romp in fantasy land:
    http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-how-the-cia-invented-conspiracy-theories/

    Erebus is a preening idiot savant, without the savant part.

    He can’t explain how eyewitnesses onsite saw CGI planes with their naked eyes.

    What witnesses? How many of them? Can you name any of them?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Which are the preferred circumstantial details of the CGI theory?
    1. That missiles struck the buildings when the CGI gave the impression that aircraft had?
    2. Nothing struck the buildings but they had been wired for an initial explosion as well as the later ones that brought them down?

    Presumably missiles would have been relatively small very fast traveling ones to minimise the chance of anyone seeing and photographing them. Even so it raises an obvious problem. Once the first tower had been hit (or its rigged first explosion set off) hundreds of people at least would be looking at the towers and be bound to see what actually happened to the second tower. Actually, isn't this last consideration proof that the CGI theory must be wrong?
    , @Boris

    What witnesses? How many of them? Can you name any of them?
     
    lol, Jonny. You are far, far gone.
  130. @NoseytheDuke
    I'm curious about the structural integrity of those three buildings too. They had no problem standing tall and without incident for forty years but then all three collapsed within just a few hours of one another.

    Two were involved in plane crashes much smaller than those they were designed to withstand and WTC7 had only minor fires burning for a few hours. All three collapsed so quickly and in a manner that contradicts Newton's Laws, specifically the law of the conservation of momentum, that the only logical conclusion is that the structural integrity was destroyed in a matter of seconds by controlled demolitions.

    that the only logical conclusion is that the structural integrity was destroyed in a matter of seconds by controlled demolitions.

    “THE TRUTH is… anything you agree with and …faith makes it all possible”. https://robertmagill.wordpress.com/2016/09/10/faith-the-human-o-s-2/

    Read More
  131. @Sam Shama

    Comment: More likely would be a Weimar style financial meltdown originating with the FED ( a QE to end all QE’s or a big rise in interest rates). This would be chaotic
     
    Ridiculous. I had this exchange with the Saker in June of 2015 [ http://www.unz.com/tsaker/the-meaning-of-the-us-saber-rattling-at-the-borders-of-russia/#comment-1016780 ], where he asserted :

    But methinks that the debt monetization strategy as currently practiced by both Japan and the US will end in either hyperinflation or default, or both.
     
    So this has been the trope, that "hyperinflation" shall be inflicted on the public by the deliberate actions of the "Nomenclatura", since at least 2009. Where is it? This has become quite the 'end-of-days' portent hasn't it?

    I had extended a wager to Saker; it was obviously declined.

    The basic idea here is that our screaming set, "hyperinflation" it does not understand . Short of a destruction in U.S productive capacity a hyperinflation is a near impossiblity. The Fed can and might [small probability] engage in more QE, as may the ECB, BoE and BoJ. It still will not come to pass.

    If you wish to call for a hyperinflationary event, we shall hold your feet to fire and ask for an expiry date on that call. I'll offer the reverse: over the course of the next year we will not experience hyperinflation. Upon expiry of that date I shall extend it to another year and so on for the next decade.

    What's your move?

    At present QE money creation fed into banks leads to 1) it being deposited with the FED to gain interest 2) it going into speculation to gain profits on stock and bond exposures.

    My move is that QE money “dumped” on the public is an entirely different concept that hasn’t been done so far. This is the Weimar system (or Bernanke’s “Helicopter Money”) where the public’s stock of cash far exceeds the production of goods. It produces a short boom until people catch on to what is happening, at which point there is a fast slide into hyperinflation.

    The reason it hasn’t happened, is that they haven’t done it yet. When they do, it will.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    While Industrial Production has been flat-lining for a few quarters now, its light years away from the situation facing Weimar, where widespread strikes totally crippled production. For example Krupps [largest industrial enterprise in the Ruhr Valley] reported their output grinding to a complete halt and as a consequence zero revenues to pay wages. Do you see any such catastrophic economic condition in the US?

    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/INDPRO



    Or, take Money Supply as a percentage of nominal GDP and scale it with Velocity. You'll see a result which simply offers the picture of poor credit conditions.

    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?graph_id=326637&updated=9022

    and here is inflation:

    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CPIAUCSL#0

    Showing a -0.04 read in the July 2016 CPI change [seasonally adjusted]

    How can that velocity or inflation increase? Well, real jobs with long-term prospects are surely what we need; which is why positive net present value infrastructure projects are key.

    As far as "Helicopter Money", if it is used with any appreciable scale, will likely be in the form of directly CB financed deficits with forward deficits not affecting traditional budgetary calculus. How you ask? Exactly the way Japan has done it. This might be news, but all CBs engage in these actions in one way or another in varying degrees. The trouble with the U.S is that we have two houses of government which do no real work, only revel in partisan politics and bickering. Had they done their work, the Fed wouldn't have had to engage in QE in the first place; QE being an indirect and weak attempt at demand expansion.

    Anyway, so while you appear to have grasped the trouble with non-circulating deposits, you are making a claim about helicopter money without actually providing a basis for its scale or mechanics. So Let's mark the date today 09/12/16, and revisit a year from today, in which time we shall see no hyperinflation, nor the 10-yr treasury yield above 2.5%. That's my assessment.
  132. @Jacques Sheete
    I'm surprised no one's yet mentioned (unless I missed it) Bollyn's excellent series on whodunnit. He strikes me as a credible source. I'd appreciate any respectable info to the contrary. In other words, if the best ya got is some puerile character attack, fuggedaboudit.

    http://www.bollyn.com/solving-9-11-the-book#article_13946

    I clicked on your link to see if it at least reminded me of whatever tentative conclusion I had formed about Bollyn. It didn’t but it’s mention of Julian Assange made me wonder how it could be that Wikileaks has nothing on any 9/11 consiracy. Not even some compromising or just ambiguous emails involving Cheney or Scooter Libby….

    Read More
  133. @Astuteobservor II
    if you are not willing to engage, why even bother in the first place?

    you called the author and his article into question with just a single point out of his entire article. when asked to seriously provide counter points, you feign lack of interest.

    how many comments have you posted thus far just for this article? with your "lack of interest"?

    talk about bizarre/contradicting behavior.

    how many comments have you posted thus far just for this article? with your “lack of interest”?

    I have the amount of interest I have and not the amount of interest you want me to have. This is a reality you must come to grips with.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Astuteobservor II
    then please stop posting retarded comments like this


    And yet no one has yet responded to the post where I pointed out The Saker’s misreading of the NIST report. Hm.

     

  134. @Jonathan Revusky

    He can’t explain how eyewitnesses onsite saw CGI planes with their naked eyes.
     
    What witnesses? How many of them? Can you name any of them?

    Which are the preferred circumstantial details of the CGI theory?
    1. That missiles struck the buildings when the CGI gave the impression that aircraft had?
    2. Nothing struck the buildings but they had been wired for an initial explosion as well as the later ones that brought them down?

    Presumably missiles would have been relatively small very fast traveling ones to minimise the chance of anyone seeing and photographing them. Even so it raises an obvious problem. Once the first tower had been hit (or its rigged first explosion set off) hundreds of people at least would be looking at the towers and be bound to see what actually happened to the second tower. Actually, isn’t this last consideration proof that the CGI theory must be wrong?

    Read More
  135. @Ron Unz

    Yes, the major notorious terrorist attack in America which most closely preceded 9/11, the Olympics square bombing. And the major notorious terrorist attack in America which most closely followed 9/11, the Anthrax mailings.

    But anyway, Bin Laden did claim credit for the 9/11 attacks:
    http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/osama-bin-laden-911-confession-13506877
     
    Well, I certainly don't claim to be an expert on 9/11, but I'm *very* knowledgeable regarding the Anthrax attacks, and they were almost certainly a false-flag action by one or more individuals in America, and had absolutely nothing to do with foreign terrorism (indeed that quickly became the official government/FBI verdict). In fact, if you spend thirty minutes googling around, you can easily determine the name of the likely culprit. Or you can read these articles, in which the issues are discussed:

    http://www.unz.com/article/our-american-pravda/

    http://www.unz.com/article/the-anthrax-files/

    As for the supposed Bin Laden confession, isn't that one of those videos that almost everyone agrees is faked, including Bin Laden intelligence experts? Right after the attacks, he was interviewed by journalists who'd dealt with him, and told them he had no connection, which seems much more solid evidence to me. I'm also *very* suspicious that those interviews were never reported in the Western MSM, so I only found out about them something like a dozen years later.

    And that fact that you're spouting off totally ignorant nonsense on the Anthrax attacks hardly strengthens your credibility on matters less familiar to me...

    I think you are reading connotations into Biz’s comment that aren’t there. He (or she – hard to tell with these pseudonymous handles) didn’t say the anthrax letters were foreign terrorism – he said they were terrorism. Just as he accurately described Eric Rudolph as a terrorist. Terrorists do not have to be foreign!

    Read More
  136. @Erebus
    In case anyone takes Incitatus' claims at face value instead of going to the link, I offer these examples of a troll's work:

    Erebus claims the planes were CGI (computer generated images) and no genuine planes flew into the towers.
     
    Though I personally don't believe commercial jets hit the buildings, I specifically avoided that claim. I said that we have footage of only one plane, and that the gross anomalies in said footage are best explained with reference to CGI than by any other method.

    He can’t explain how eyewitnesses onsite saw CGI planes with their naked eyes.
     
    I didn't address that topic at all in #304.

    He can’t explain what happened to the plane crews and passengers.
     
    I didn't address that topic at all in #304 either.

    When confronted by people who know victim families personally, he retreats into disbelief.
     
    Let's correct that to, "When confronted by anonymous internet entities claiming extraordinary, but irrelevant relationships, he ignores them". If that's what Incitatus actually meant, I plead Nolo Contendere.

    He can’t explain why the second tower hit (WTC 2) came down before the first (WTC 1).
     
    To be sure, I cannot explain why the WTC2 came down before WTC1, but I did offer a couple of conjectures which I thought were plausible.

    He can’t explain why obscure WTC 7 came down at all, but urges “let Google be your friend.”
     
    Well, not quite. Only the most obtuse mind could doubt that WTC7 was intentionally demolished, and as I expect human agency to have played a role in that, there must have been a reason for it. I suggested that there were a number of political motives to destroy it, and suggested Googling for that information as it's readily available. I could have added that there were also criminal motives for its destruction, also available using Google.
    I further offered a couple of (what I thought were) plausible conjectures on why WTC7 came down so much later than WTC1 & 2.

    One can also look at #379 and #381 in the same thread where some of Incitatus' complaints were addressed.

    Though I personally don’t believe commercial jets hit the buildings

    This is an absolutely insane thing to believe.

    I said that we have footage of only one plane

    We have footage of two planes.

    I didn’t address that topic at all in #304.

    True. You still can’t explain it. There is zero evidence for it. There is copious evidence against it.

    Only the most obtuse mind could doubt that WTC7 was intentionally demolished

    Says the guy who believes an insane CGI theory.

    The truther continuum is interesting, and is something seen in other conspiracy theories. There is a distribution of theories that gets progressively more bizarre:

    Level
    I. Plausible, scant evidence…………………..Government knows about 9/11 plot, allows is to happen.
    II. Plausible, no evidence………………………Government plans and executes attacks.
    III. Barely plausible, evidence against……Pentagon Missile, controlled demolition, fake calls.
    IV. Implausible, evidence against………….CGI planes, holograms, WTC nukes.

    To be clear, blaming the attacks on aliens, lizard men or Canada would be closer to level III than level IV. That’s how divorced from reality many of you are. There’s essentially no hope of redemption.

    Read More
  137. @Anonymous
    Deena Burnett reported that she received cell phone calls from her husband Tom on Flight 93 which would not have been possible:

    http://www.911truth.org/griffin-response-paul-zarembka-critique-phone-call-fakery/

    Deena told the FBI on the day of the attacks that she had received “three to five cellular phone calls” from her husband, Tom Burnett, calling from United 93. 4 “Only one of the calls,” the FBI report added, “did not show on the caller identification as she was on the line with another call.” 5 The FBI later indicated that she had received (only) three calls. If we accept that as a correct statement of fact, then Deena’s testimony would have been that her Caller ID showed two of the calls she received from her husband to have been from his cell phone.

    And yet, it is now generally agreed, her husband could not have made cell phone calls from United 93, which was at the time over 40,000 feet in the air. And when in 2006, the FBI’s report on phone calls from the 9/11 planes became public in relation to the Moussaoui trial, this report said of Tom Burnett that his calls were made from seat-back phones. The FBI’s report thereby avoided the problem of endorsing technologically impossible phone calls.
     
    Flight 77 was not equipped with Air Phones, and there were purported cell phone calls made from Flight 77 which would not have been possible:

    According to her husband — Solicitor General Theodore “Ted” Olson — she had called him twice from American 77, with the first call lasting “about one (1) minute” 19 and the second one “two or three or four minutes.” 20

    It appears, however, that this story could not have been true, for several reasons. In the first place, the story told by Ted Olson, as purportedly told to him by his wife — the story according to which three or four slight men armed with only knives and box-cutters held off 60 passengers and crew members — was extremely implausible.

    Second, there seemed to be no way that Barbara Olson could have made calls from American 77: Her flight at the time of the calls was too high for cell phone calls, and the FBI, in any case, indicated in 2004 that there were no cell phone calls from this flight. (To repeat: The FBI said: “All of the calls from Flight 77 were made via the onboard airphone system.” 21 ) The Boeing 757s equipped for American Airlines, moreover, evidently had no onboard phones for use by passengers and crew. These facts, especially when combined with the implausibility of the Olson story, had provided strong reasons to doubt the truth of that story prior to 2006. But in that year, the FBI’s telephone evidence about American Flight 77 was made public as part of the FBI’s evidence for the Moussaoui trial, and it said, in effect, that the Olson story could not have been true: Whereas Ted Olson had said that he had received two calls from his wife, one of which lasted about a minute and the second of which lasted at least twice as long, the FBI report said that Barbara Olson attempted (only) one call, that it was “unconnected,” and that it (therefore) lasted “0 seconds.” 22
     

    A long quote from someone of no known credibility doesn’t inspire me to follow it up but it does strike me as unlikely that those planes would have spent much time at 40,000 feet if any.

    Read More
  138. @Erebus
    Congratulations on a stellar rant. Wildly off the mark, but a hell of a volley. I hope it didn't leave any permanent stains.

    I find only one thing I can address. To whit:

    Why should it be any more difficult to believe that our government would kill 3000 Americans in our own time if it suited its purposes? Given the fact that the US deep state is one of the most corrupt, feckless, and downright byzantine organizations to ever exist, I have no trouble at all believing such a thing, except for the minor fact that it did not happen.
     
    To which I have 3 questions:
    1. What happens if you remove that "minor fact"? Would you go Che Guevara?
    2. What would you do if confronted by irrefutable evidence? Would you be able to change your mind?
    3. What would that evidence have to look like for you to find it irrefutable?

    On CGI would you care to address the matters raised in #140.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Erebus

    On CGI would you care to address the matters raised in #140.
     
    Well, I'll give you some quick thoughts...

    Which are the preferred circumstantial details of the CGI theory?
    1. That missiles struck the buildings when the CGI gave the impression that aircraft had?
    2. Nothing struck the buildings but they had been wired for an initial explosion as well as the later ones that brought them down?
     
    I think that's a distinction without a difference for the purposes of the demolition, or for the purposes of CGI. Neither is enhanced by the employment of missiles. Both require the initial explosion to create the Wiley E. Coyote cutout in the facade, but sending armed missiles would introduce an uncontrolled variable into the demolition sequence.

    To my mind, the use of missiles would have but one purpose, namely to seed the imagination of any witnesses with a blurry flying thing caught out the corner of their eye, backed up by an appropriate amount of aircraft noise. Auto-suggestion, enhanced by "professional auto-suggesters", would have filled in the rest of the details of AA liveried Boeing 7x7s etc.

    For myself, I tend to lean towards cruise missiles of the old slow, jet propelled, type in use since the WW2 era V2. They were designed to fly at low altitude, be highly manoeuvrable, can be very accurate, fly at subsonic speeds (5-600mph), make lots of jet noise, and look vaguely like aircraft though much smaller. They would have been unarmed, of course, but blowing things up wasn't their mission.
    Parenthetically, that the missiles may have been picked up on radar would provide the reason why the "commercial aircraft" had to be said to be travelling at impossibly high speeds. EG: AA11 "impacted" at an astonishing 590mph a few hundred feet above sea level.
    Besides the physical impossibilities (see Lear affidavit above) of flying commercial airliners at those speeds and altitudes, the question arises of why didn't the pilots slow down to greatly improve the probability of hitting the buildings? Wouldn't two plausible collisions at 300mph have delivered the message they were ostensibly sending?
    Or did these geniuses calculate that the buildings would collapse if they hit at (an impossible) 590mph, but would remain upright at say 300mph?

    Does that help?
  139. @Erebus
    I've long been an admirer of Thomas Kuhn's.

    Indeed, humans live a narrative that continuously tells them who they are, the world they live in, and their and everybody/everything else's place in it.
    I've often thought that the "truther" versions of 9/11 don't get traction not because they don''t make physical sense, but precisely because they do. I've watched competent professionals, confronted with mathematical proof (that they sometimes worked out for themselves), look from side to side in obvious discomfort and then reject it wholesale using some semi-religious psycho-babble argument like "Nobody could be that evil"....

    Why?
    Well, a part of the answer is that to acknowledge the facts is to also face an life changing decision. That is, whether one is OK with the fact that one's "betters" just murdered 3000 of your compatriots with absolute impunity, or not.
    If not, a moral imperative stares one in the face. One has to go Che Guevara and fight this evil with every fibre of his being, at the cost of one's career, home, (probably) family and any hopes & dreams one may have had for a comfortable, long life.
    The shame of shirking the moral imperative, that one is OK with one's "betters" murdering how ever many they like of ones compatriots, is to admit to cowardice and henceforth to live an unprincipled, grovelling existence at the whim of those "betters".

    Nobody will thank the truther for putting them in that position. And, the smarter they are the worse they react. So, their internal narratives build defences in an earnest desperation, scorning the truth they themselves worked out and casting all other plain facts out the window. No obfuscatory, prevaricating, question-begging, word-mincing tactic will go untried as the lifelong narrative desperately tries to save itself.

    That's humans for ya, and the "betters" know it well. That's how they got to be betters.

    “If not, a moral imperative stares one in the face. One has to go Che Guevara and fight this evil with every fibre of his being, at the cost of one’s career, home, (probably) family and any hopes & dreams one may have had for a comfortable, long life.”

    You’re probably right there, and this is the problem. For example a big majority of structural engineers know exactly what happened to WTC7 but only a small percentage are willing to stand up and say it.

    However, if and when the truth about WTC7 becomes mainstream, then they’ll all say that it was obvious and they knew all along.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jacques Sheete

    However, if and when the truth about WTC7 becomes mainstream, then they’ll all say that it was obvious and they knew all along.
     
    You are most likely correct. There is a fine article by the eminenetly credible Uri Avnery that makes a similar point about former security officers.

    “Something strange happens to retired chiefs of the Israeli internal Security Service, Shin Bet.
    … once the chiefs of the service leave their jobs, they become spokesmen for peace. How come?”

    -Uri Avnery, Civil War

    http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1472915025

     

    , @Astuteobservor II
    probably when they retired and safe from losing their jobs and don't care about reps as much.
  140. @Ron Unz

    Yes, the major notorious terrorist attack in America which most closely preceded 9/11, the Olympics square bombing. And the major notorious terrorist attack in America which most closely followed 9/11, the Anthrax mailings.

    But anyway, Bin Laden did claim credit for the 9/11 attacks:
    http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/osama-bin-laden-911-confession-13506877
     
    Well, I certainly don't claim to be an expert on 9/11, but I'm *very* knowledgeable regarding the Anthrax attacks, and they were almost certainly a false-flag action by one or more individuals in America, and had absolutely nothing to do with foreign terrorism (indeed that quickly became the official government/FBI verdict). In fact, if you spend thirty minutes googling around, you can easily determine the name of the likely culprit. Or you can read these articles, in which the issues are discussed:

    http://www.unz.com/article/our-american-pravda/

    http://www.unz.com/article/the-anthrax-files/

    As for the supposed Bin Laden confession, isn't that one of those videos that almost everyone agrees is faked, including Bin Laden intelligence experts? Right after the attacks, he was interviewed by journalists who'd dealt with him, and told them he had no connection, which seems much more solid evidence to me. I'm also *very* suspicious that those interviews were never reported in the Western MSM, so I only found out about them something like a dozen years later.

    And that fact that you're spouting off totally ignorant nonsense on the Anthrax attacks hardly strengthens your credibility on matters less familiar to me...

    a) You had originally asked:

    Can anyone think of the last time a terrorist leader was unwilling to take credit for his successful attack?

    Nothing was specified about whether the terrorism was ‘domestic’ or ‘foreign.’ The Anthrax mailings fit the bill as asked.

    b) Just because a terrorist attack is likely domestic or not related to Islamists does not make it a ‘false flag.’ There are plenty of domestic groups with various agendas, and weird ideological and/or deranged individuals, and these are the likely source of the anthrax mailings.

    c) Bin Laden and other people affiliated with Al Qaeda have claimed credit for 9/11 on a number of occasions. If you don’t like the videos found right after 9/11, there is the Bin Laden tape released (purposefully by Al Qaeda) in 2004:
    http://www.foxnews.com/story/2004/10/30/bin-laden-claims-responsibility-for-11.html

    Read More
  141. @HardFacts
    To This is Our Home (which says so much) :

    Saker doesn't believe what he just wrote?? What makes you think he went through the trouble in writing such a well research article he "doesn't believe"? Toward the end of the article he states:

    "Likewise, the external observations of the collapse of WTC 1, WTC2 and WTC7 clearly show that these buildings were brought down by controlled demolition, and that by itself is sufficient to demand a new investigation. The fact that the 9/11 Truth movement cannot explain every detail of what took place on that day cannot be held against it. Now that we have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that controlled demolitions did bring down these buildings, it would be the task of the new independent investigation to, well, investigate and explain how what we observed happened."

    I have watched the film of the collapse of the two main towers repeatedly and have come to the same conclusion every time. The fire heated the steel weakening it and in combination with the damaged structure on the side of impact, the buildings collapsed toward the impact side. Lower floors collapse as a result of the increased forces beyond the safety factor of the building design.

    I can’t speak to the smaller tower as I’ve never seen any film on that, but asserting the two taller buildings were brought down by controlled demolition is silly.

    I am, by the way, a Professional Engineer with a degree in Civil Engineering.

    Read More
    • Replies: @WorkingClass
    "I am, by the way, a Professional Engineer with a degree in Civil Engineering."

    Me too.
    , @Jonathan Revusky

    I am, by the way, a Professional Engineer with a degree in Civil Engineering.
     
    Oh really, where is your degree from?
    , @NoseytheDuke
    Your post proves only that you are a liar, either about being an engineer or about your impossible 'reasoning' on the cause of the collapses of the twin towers.
  142. @Jonathan Revusky

    He can’t explain how eyewitnesses onsite saw CGI planes with their naked eyes.
     
    What witnesses? How many of them? Can you name any of them?

    What witnesses? How many of them? Can you name any of them?

    lol, Jonny. You are far, far gone.

    Read More
  143. @Jonathan Revusky
    Yeah, here's another to think about, that is potentially far more devastating...

    The alleged hijackers. They go to America in some cases well over a year before the operation. At least some were in flight schools to learn how to fly airplanes. These people were quite memorable and drew attention to themselves -- apparently because they were such lousy students. And the reason for that, as far as I can tell, must be mostly that they did not know English hardly.

    For instance, the guy they say flew the plane into the Pentagon, Hani Hanjour, studied in some intensive English language program in California prior to going and studying how to fly a plane in Florida, I think.

    Just try to think about this from the (alleged) terrorists' point of view. Imagine that you are part of a scheme to fly a plane into a building in China. So you go to China a year or two before the operation, and you enroll in a Chinese language academy to learn Chinese....

    ...so that you can then go enroll in a flight school in China in which the language of instruction is Chinese.

    ...so that you can fly the plane into a building in China...

    Think about that... This is exactly what they are claiming these Arab terrorists did!

    Who would ever do that? Would this ever occur to you? Why not just enroll in a flight school in your own country, where you already are fluent in the language of instruction, and then go to China at the last possible moment and fly the plane into the building?

    The operation, as described, doesn't make any sense, does it? Who would ever concoct such a plan? Imagine yourself as one of the planners of the operation. Your operatives, by and large, cannot speak English, so you send them to America over a year before the operation, to first study English, so that they can learn to fly a plane in a flight school in which the language of instruction is English...

    “The operation, as described, doesn’t make any sense, does it? Who would ever concoct such a plan?”

    The essential point was to have “Arab Terrorists”, with the best Florida investigation I’ve seen so far being Daniel Hopsicker’s, “Welcome to Terrorland. https://www.amazon.com/Welcome-Terrorland-Mohamed-Cover-up-Florida/dp/0975290673

    The official story goes that Islamic fundamentalist trainee pilots sneaked unseen into Florida flight training schools where they learnt to fly the jets used on 9/11, which in itself immediately causes a problem since: 1) they weren’t Islamic fundamentalists – they spend their time seriously drinking and whoring 2) they didn’t sneak in unseen – they were highly visible and got red carpet treatment with regard to visas etc. 3) they were completely incapable of flying the 9/11 airliners at the speeds and on the trajectories seen on the day.

    Read More
  144. @Miro23
    "If not, a moral imperative stares one in the face. One has to go Che Guevara and fight this evil with every fibre of his being, at the cost of one’s career, home, (probably) family and any hopes & dreams one may have had for a comfortable, long life."

    You're probably right there, and this is the problem. For example a big majority of structural engineers know exactly what happened to WTC7 but only a small percentage are willing to stand up and say it.

    However, if and when the truth about WTC7 becomes mainstream, then they'll all say that it was obvious and they knew all along.

    However, if and when the truth about WTC7 becomes mainstream, then they’ll all say that it was obvious and they knew all along.

    You are most likely correct. There is a fine article by the eminenetly credible Uri Avnery that makes a similar point about former security officers.

    “Something strange happens to retired chiefs of the Israeli internal Security Service, Shin Bet.
    … once the chiefs of the service leave their jobs, they become spokesmen for peace. How come?”

    -Uri Avnery, Civil War

    http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1472915025

    Read More
  145. @Astuteobservor II
    if you are not willing to engage, why even bother in the first place?

    you called the author and his article into question with just a single point out of his entire article. when asked to seriously provide counter points, you feign lack of interest.

    how many comments have you posted thus far just for this article? with your "lack of interest"?

    talk about bizarre/contradicting behavior.

    if you are not willing to engage, why even bother in the first place?

    And I don’t see the point of continuing if The Saker and others cannot admit their error. Why would you intentionally leave an obvious error in your article? Anyway, I doubt that any correction will happen.

    Read More
    • Agree: ogunsiron
    • Replies: @Astuteobservor II
    who cares about saker or others, you are now talking to me. our conversation started when you replied to me.
  146. @Boris

    how many comments have you posted thus far just for this article? with your “lack of interest”?
     
    I have the amount of interest I have and not the amount of interest you want me to have. This is a reality you must come to grips with.

    then please stop posting retarded comments like this

    And yet no one has yet responded to the post where I pointed out The Saker’s misreading of the NIST report. Hm.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Boris

    then please stop posting retarded comments like this
     
    I'm sorry that comment hurt your delicate feelings. You should be over it soon, God willing.
  147. @Miro23
    "If not, a moral imperative stares one in the face. One has to go Che Guevara and fight this evil with every fibre of his being, at the cost of one’s career, home, (probably) family and any hopes & dreams one may have had for a comfortable, long life."

    You're probably right there, and this is the problem. For example a big majority of structural engineers know exactly what happened to WTC7 but only a small percentage are willing to stand up and say it.

    However, if and when the truth about WTC7 becomes mainstream, then they'll all say that it was obvious and they knew all along.

    probably when they retired and safe from losing their jobs and don’t care about reps as much.

    Read More
  148. @Boris

    if you are not willing to engage, why even bother in the first place?
     
    And I don't see the point of continuing if The Saker and others cannot admit their error. Why would you intentionally leave an obvious error in your article? Anyway, I doubt that any correction will happen.

    who cares about saker or others, you are now talking to me. our conversation started when you replied to me.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Boris
    You aren't talking about anything. You are whining. Have some self respect.
  149. @Astuteobservor II
    then please stop posting retarded comments like this


    And yet no one has yet responded to the post where I pointed out The Saker’s misreading of the NIST report. Hm.

     

    then please stop posting retarded comments like this

    I’m sorry that comment hurt your delicate feelings. You should be over it soon, God willing.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Astuteobservor II
    what in the flaming hell does my feelings have to do with any of this?

    like, how did that thought even crossed that retarded brain of yours? fyi, that is a rhetorical question.

    jeez. I guess the retarded always resort to this tactic once they are called out for their retardation huh?

  150. @Astuteobservor II
    who cares about saker or others, you are now talking to me. our conversation started when you replied to me.

    You aren’t talking about anything. You are whining. Have some self respect.

    Read More
  151. @Miro23
    At present QE money creation fed into banks leads to 1) it being deposited with the FED to gain interest 2) it going into speculation to gain profits on stock and bond exposures.

    My move is that QE money "dumped" on the public is an entirely different concept that hasn't been done so far. This is the Weimar system (or Bernanke's "Helicopter Money") where the public's stock of cash far exceeds the production of goods. It produces a short boom until people catch on to what is happening, at which point there is a fast slide into hyperinflation.

    The reason it hasn't happened, is that they haven't done it yet. When they do, it will.

    While Industrial Production has been flat-lining for a few quarters now, its light years away from the situation facing Weimar, where widespread strikes totally crippled production. For example Krupps [largest industrial enterprise in the Ruhr Valley] reported their output grinding to a complete halt and as a consequence zero revenues to pay wages. Do you see any such catastrophic economic condition in the US?

    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/INDPRO

    [MORE]

    Or, take Money Supply as a percentage of nominal GDP and scale it with Velocity. You’ll see a result which simply offers the picture of poor credit conditions.

    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?graph_id=326637&updated=9022

    and here is inflation:

    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CPIAUCSL#0

    Showing a -0.04 read in the July 2016 CPI change [seasonally adjusted]

    How can that velocity or inflation increase? Well, real jobs with long-term prospects are surely what we need; which is why positive net present value infrastructure projects are key.

    As far as “Helicopter Money”, if it is used with any appreciable scale, will likely be in the form of directly CB financed deficits with forward deficits not affecting traditional budgetary calculus. How you ask? Exactly the way Japan has done it. This might be news, but all CBs engage in these actions in one way or another in varying degrees. The trouble with the U.S is that we have two houses of government which do no real work, only revel in partisan politics and bickering. Had they done their work, the Fed wouldn’t have had to engage in QE in the first place; QE being an indirect and weak attempt at demand expansion.

    Anyway, so while you appear to have grasped the trouble with non-circulating deposits, you are making a claim about helicopter money without actually providing a basis for its scale or mechanics. So Let’s mark the date today 09/12/16, and revisit a year from today, in which time we shall see no hyperinflation, nor the 10-yr treasury yield above 2.5%. That’s my assessment.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Miro23
    I'm taking a more political line on this.

    Hyperinflation is easy to do.

    The Weimar government decided to hand out more money than was justified by German economic output and it worked - they got a very competitive export industry, buzzing factories, employment for millions of soldiers returning from the war and the wiping out un-payable foreign and domestic government debts. The downside of course was that by 1923, the price of a cabbage that had recently sold for 25 pf now cost 50.000.000 marks and the German middle class was ruined (see Bernd Widdig's excellent book "Culture and Inflation in Weimar Germany (Weimar & Now: German Cultural Criticism)").

    A US version would be equally easy. The FED & Treasury + their friends in Congress could decide for example to hand out a FED created "Stimulus Bonus" of $ 10.000 to every adult in the US and they would see an explosion of economic activity as everyone bought furniture, clothing, made down-payments, hired workers etc.

    Here the activity/inflation would happen in the real economy. The present QE system just gives the $ trillions to the banks who channel it into activity/inflation in the stock market and their own pockets.

  152. It was a terrorist attack and there is no reason to believe it wasn’t. How they were always able to do these attacks during drills going back to the first Gulf War is a mystery. Congress had signed the authorization to remove Saddam Hussein in 1998 during the Clinton administration. We had a no fly zone on the country for years. Hillary had written an article for the NYT about the women of Afghanistan and how she wanted her husband to do something. There were plenty of books out to help people feel sympathy for certain groups in the middle east about how these rebels are mistreated. Hillary was walking a young wanna be lawyer at the time around congress to talk about the other women in Afghanistan who want rights like her. But the authorization for Iraq was in 1998.
    After 911 this magic coalition appeared to go into not Iraq but Afghanistan. So off we went to get al qaida and Osama bin Laden, except we never bothered to do that but ran past the crusader Bin Laden and went for the Taliban instead, with us fighting beside the Northern Alliance who the Taliban had ousted from power and whose old leader made a home at the UN. Somewhere add in the UN’s R2P or responsibility to protect.
    But there was still the resolution for Iraq that was signed in 1998 and where is al qaida?
    The entire narrative about terrorists filtered out because of Afghanistan, Bill Clinton bombed some empty bunkers there after the USS Cole was bombed as retaliation for killing for the killing of our sailors not by the Taliban but some ghosts someone claimed was in Afghanistan.
    But we still had a no fly zone and resolution against Iraq from 1998. It took ol George two years to put something together for Iraq, because once you occupy it, according to the Geneva Convention you have to rebuild it. Congress laid the blame for Iraq squarely with the Bush administration, it was the left who started the whole 911 truth movement so filled with lies against the Bush administration that by this point no one can see straight. So at what point in time will the left tell us where is al qaida? Was the Taliban, Al Assad, Mubarak, Gaddafi etc
    al qaida? You mean the left with their Arab spring and throwing out almost every leader in the Middle East wasn’t going to take out Saddam too when there was a resolution to do so authorized in 1998?
    Anyway it’s just a theory of mine with a couple of facts thrown in for good measure. I voted for Bush because he ran on giving a tax break the left deplored, and before they run off at the mouth about how small it was for them Congress decided where the money went and the left doesn’t pay much taxes anyway, and the other platform stand was no nation building. So you can blame Bush for Iraq all day, the rest belongs to you.

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    "So you can blame Bush for Iraq all day, the rest belongs to you."

    You mean the 5 trillion US$ (and running) that the Bush' unfunded 9and illegal) wars have inflicted on the US citizenry? There was also the maculate conception of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan by the US; you might want to check the allegiance of the "moderate" jihadis in today's Syria, whom the US have been funding. It is also very hard - almost impossible - to overlook this speech by General Clark, "Wars Were Planned - Seven Countries In Five Years:" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RC1Mepk_Sw (Yinon plan?)
    As Colonel Lang forcefully proposed, this country must reintroduce a near-universal national conscription, the plutocrats' children leading the charge in combat in the future wars.
    , @NoseytheDuke
    Much as I care greatly for America and the countless good-hearted people that I encountered in my many years living there, it is people such as yourself that remind me that, whether by such a thing as karma or by the law of cause and effect, it must be that the American people should suffer greatly along with the British, Canadians, Australians and all other peoples who joined in on the criminal enterprise that makes up the post 9/11 wars of aggression.
  153. @Erebus
    I've long been an admirer of Thomas Kuhn's.

    Indeed, humans live a narrative that continuously tells them who they are, the world they live in, and their and everybody/everything else's place in it.
    I've often thought that the "truther" versions of 9/11 don't get traction not because they don''t make physical sense, but precisely because they do. I've watched competent professionals, confronted with mathematical proof (that they sometimes worked out for themselves), look from side to side in obvious discomfort and then reject it wholesale using some semi-religious psycho-babble argument like "Nobody could be that evil"....

    Why?
    Well, a part of the answer is that to acknowledge the facts is to also face an life changing decision. That is, whether one is OK with the fact that one's "betters" just murdered 3000 of your compatriots with absolute impunity, or not.
    If not, a moral imperative stares one in the face. One has to go Che Guevara and fight this evil with every fibre of his being, at the cost of one's career, home, (probably) family and any hopes & dreams one may have had for a comfortable, long life.
    The shame of shirking the moral imperative, that one is OK with one's "betters" murdering how ever many they like of ones compatriots, is to admit to cowardice and henceforth to live an unprincipled, grovelling existence at the whim of those "betters".

    Nobody will thank the truther for putting them in that position. And, the smarter they are the worse they react. So, their internal narratives build defences in an earnest desperation, scorning the truth they themselves worked out and casting all other plain facts out the window. No obfuscatory, prevaricating, question-begging, word-mincing tactic will go untried as the lifelong narrative desperately tries to save itself.

    That's humans for ya, and the "betters" know it well. That's how they got to be betters.

    Wow, what a doubleplus good comment!

    very insightful, and scary true

    to acknowledge the facts is to also face an life changing decision. That is, whether one is OK with the fact that one’s “betters” just murdered 3000 of your compatriots with absolute impunity, or not.
    If not, a moral imperative stares one in the face. One has to go Che Guevara and fight this evil with every fibre of his being

    but I wish people understood that this is not necessarily true. One doesn’t have to “hoist the black flag and begin slitting throats”, even if you’re tempted. Rather all anyone would do is accept the truth, and then go from there. If the subject comes up, tell people of your skepticism, if they ask further, ask them if they even know about Building Seven, and then go from there. As unpalatable as this whole thing is, the truth is persistent, simply because it is the truth.

    You don’t have to jeopardize your career or reputation, all you might want to do is visit websites (like the UR) and use simple, quiet reason and links to videos and other proof of what happened, and then you might even get to have some fun when you find a troll or two- who you discover is trying to keep the lies (and the wars and the ‘special relationship’) from foundering, and then, by all means, hoist the black flag, and have some fun!

    Read More
  154. @Tom Welsh
    "Nobody will thank the truther for putting them in that position. And, the smarter they are the worse they react".

    And those are exactly the same people who, when talk of the Holocaust comes up, ask earnestly, "But why did ordinary German citizens allow all this wickedness to go on? Surely they had to have known what was happening?"

    “But why did ordinary German citizens allow all this wickedness to go on? Surely they had to have known what was happening?”

    also there is the mantra “don’t ask me to cry for those German civilians who were burned up in the cities or murdered after the war was over by the millions. They had it coming! For allowing their government to wage aggressive wars all over the place!!!

    Read More
  155. @Tom Welsh
    They have done what they could. Not always is it possible (immediately, at any rate) to bring down a treasonous, murderous government and punish those responsible. More often, it is the government that asserts its monopoly on violence to punish those who have told the truth about it (sound familiar?)

    Nevertheless, publishing the truth for those who will hear it is a moral act (and a brave one). We should not refrain from doing what is right just because we cannot be sure it will immediately lead to complete success. You can never tell when a good action, or a piece of courageous truth-telling, may start a big crack in the fabric of an evil system.

    That's certainly the view that people like Alexander Solzhenitsyn took.

    You can never tell when a good action, or a piece of courageous truth-telling, may start a big crack in the fabric of an evil system.

    That’s certainly the view that people like Alexander Solzhenitsyn took.

    agree

    Read More
  156. @Boris

    then please stop posting retarded comments like this
     
    I'm sorry that comment hurt your delicate feelings. You should be over it soon, God willing.

    what in the flaming hell does my feelings have to do with any of this?

    like, how did that thought even crossed that retarded brain of yours? fyi, that is a rhetorical question.

    jeez. I guess the retarded always resort to this tactic once they are called out for their retardation huh?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Boris

    what in the flaming hell does my feelings have to do with any of this?
     
    You seem upset. You have been complaining about one post and making strange demands. Nothing you are saying makes any sense.

    So far all I can see is that you REALLY didn't like a post I made. If you have a point, then make it.
  157. @Jonathan Revusky
    Yeah, here's another to think about, that is potentially far more devastating...

    The alleged hijackers. They go to America in some cases well over a year before the operation. At least some were in flight schools to learn how to fly airplanes. These people were quite memorable and drew attention to themselves -- apparently because they were such lousy students. And the reason for that, as far as I can tell, must be mostly that they did not know English hardly.

    For instance, the guy they say flew the plane into the Pentagon, Hani Hanjour, studied in some intensive English language program in California prior to going and studying how to fly a plane in Florida, I think.

    Just try to think about this from the (alleged) terrorists' point of view. Imagine that you are part of a scheme to fly a plane into a building in China. So you go to China a year or two before the operation, and you enroll in a Chinese language academy to learn Chinese....

    ...so that you can then go enroll in a flight school in China in which the language of instruction is Chinese.

    ...so that you can fly the plane into a building in China...

    Think about that... This is exactly what they are claiming these Arab terrorists did!

    Who would ever do that? Would this ever occur to you? Why not just enroll in a flight school in your own country, where you already are fluent in the language of instruction, and then go to China at the last possible moment and fly the plane into the building?

    The operation, as described, doesn't make any sense, does it? Who would ever concoct such a plan? Imagine yourself as one of the planners of the operation. Your operatives, by and large, cannot speak English, so you send them to America over a year before the operation, to first study English, so that they can learn to fly a plane in a flight school in which the language of instruction is English...

    Who would ever concoct such a plan? Imagine yourself as one of the planners of the operation. Your operatives, by and large, cannot speak English, so you send them to America over a year before the operation, to first study English, so that they can learn to fly a plane in a flight school in which the language of instruction is English…

    they made sure their patsies were well-groomed

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
    You know, there is another aspect of this I hadn't thought about for a while.

    Remember the guy who was supposed to be the 20th hijacker, but they took him into custody? Zacarias Moussaoui. French Arab ethnic, born in France. He's still alive, but they have in a supermax prison somewhere, basically buried alive. I suppose nobody can go talk to him. Also, they probably had him in solitary for years and his mind doubtless snapped. This guy...

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

    Actually, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zacarias_Moussaoui#Flight_training


    From February 26 to May 29, 2001, Moussaoui attended flight training courses at Airman Flight School in Norman, Oklahoma. Despite 57 hours of flying lessons, he failed and left without ever having flown solo. This school was visited by Mohamed Atta and Marwan al-Shehhi, who piloted planes into the north and south towers of the World Trade Center.
     
    This guy, Moussaoui, by all accounts, could hardly speak English. He had some kind of kangaroo trial in which he acted as his own lawyer. Figure that one out. Or maybe he realized that the public defender lawyer that he was assigned was going to sell him down the river so he decided to be his own lawyer. But the guy couldn't speak English hardly, it seems.

    So, the guy was in America trying to learn to fly a plane. There in Norman, Oklahoma. He was born in France and was fluent in French. Why would he not just study how to fly the plane somewhere in France???!!!

    I just did a quick google search: "aéroclub école de pilotage". Here are the results:

    https://www.google.es/#q=a%C3%A9roclub+%C3%A9cole+de+pilotage

    What comes up is an extensive list of private flight academies, mostly in France, where one could go learn to fly a plane. Every last one of these, presumably, the language of instruction is French.

    Why would a Frenchman who cannot speak English hardly worth a damn go to the USA to study how to fly a plane when he could just go to a flight school in France? Where the language of instruction is his native language...

    Did he ask the court to consider this basic question before they locked him up in the Supermax prison for life?

    Or conversely, if you had to go learn how to fly a plane, and you're a native English speaker living in the USA, why would you go to any of these flight academies where the language of instruction is French??!! Like, even if you had some rudimentary high school French, why would you ever do that, when you could just go to one of these places in your own country, where you could study in English?

    You know, even on the basis of this kind of consideration, it's just so obvious that these people are framed, they're patsies. It's the only explanation. The narrative is impossible.

    But it's not like this is the only glitch in the story. And, of course, the physical evidence relating to the collapse of the buildings is harder evidence certainly, but even just something like this.... it's like... mind-boggling really, the absurd aspects of the narrative.

  158. @Quartermaster
    I have watched the film of the collapse of the two main towers repeatedly and have come to the same conclusion every time. The fire heated the steel weakening it and in combination with the damaged structure on the side of impact, the buildings collapsed toward the impact side. Lower floors collapse as a result of the increased forces beyond the safety factor of the building design.

    I can't speak to the smaller tower as I've never seen any film on that, but asserting the two taller buildings were brought down by controlled demolition is silly.

    I am, by the way, a Professional Engineer with a degree in Civil Engineering.

    “I am, by the way, a Professional Engineer with a degree in Civil Engineering.”

    Me too.

    Read More
  159. @Quartermaster
    I have watched the film of the collapse of the two main towers repeatedly and have come to the same conclusion every time. The fire heated the steel weakening it and in combination with the damaged structure on the side of impact, the buildings collapsed toward the impact side. Lower floors collapse as a result of the increased forces beyond the safety factor of the building design.

    I can't speak to the smaller tower as I've never seen any film on that, but asserting the two taller buildings were brought down by controlled demolition is silly.

    I am, by the way, a Professional Engineer with a degree in Civil Engineering.

    I am, by the way, a Professional Engineer with a degree in Civil Engineering.

    Oh really, where is your degree from?

    Read More
  160. great article!

    thank you Saker, for an appropriate tribute to the victims and their families who lost their lives on that day. What better way to memorialize them than to ask for an investigation to find their killers?

    >>><<<

    as an aside, I'm reasonably certain that jets hit the towers, as the films of them doing so seems to me exactly what such a thing would look like. Also after the first tower was struck, they would have expected a lot of eyes (and cameras) on the general scene, and therefor would have needed the jets, if that was going to be the narrative. IMO.

    but the details and minutia are often a (deliberate) distraction. With any effort at all, y0u can find a massive abundance of evidence that this was a false flag attack, orchestrated by the Mossad and elements at the highest levels of our government and media. It isn't unprecedented, they've done false flags to foment all the wars, in one form or another. And as with the attack in the USS Liberty, we all know the entire edifice of our federal government and MSM will circle the wagons and all collude to protect our 'special relationship', even when it means sacrificing American citizens, like they did when Johnson/McNamara ordered the jets that were scrambled to assist the Liberty to return. Twice.

    So I have known of the murderous treachery and outright treason that lurks at the heart of my federal government for quite some time now. 911 was for me a wakeup call that they had every intention of making the 21st century just as bloody and horrific as the last one was. And that's saying a lot!

    God speed to all who are trying to prevent them from doing that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    I'm glad you have also made the point that I did at #140, namely that once the first tower was belching smoke there would have been huge numbers of eyes and cameras sure to catch whatever happened to the second tower. The only commenter who seems to have a defensibly coherent account of what may have happened which involves US or Israeli pperatives is CalDre - not that i actually believe his version.
    , @NoseytheDuke
    Agreed Rurik. Any decent human being with morals and a functioning brain should know that the official story if blatantly false and so they should focus their efforts on demanding a full, open and independent investigation. I have some theories myself on the who and how but these only serve to distract and give succour to the vast numbers of fools and traitors who claim "conspiracy theory" every time a legitimate question is raised about these world changing events.
  161. @Astuteobservor II
    what in the flaming hell does my feelings have to do with any of this?

    like, how did that thought even crossed that retarded brain of yours? fyi, that is a rhetorical question.

    jeez. I guess the retarded always resort to this tactic once they are called out for their retardation huh?

    what in the flaming hell does my feelings have to do with any of this?

    You seem upset. You have been complaining about one post and making strange demands. Nothing you are saying makes any sense.

    So far all I can see is that you REALLY didn’t like a post I made. If you have a point, then make it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @edNels


    You sound just the same as the computer in the movie: Space Odessy.

    ''Hal you seem upset… '' Very neuter sounding, condescending, concerned.

    Hall had to take a couple a cards out, to get it to work right.

    Cutting edge computers/software, think they can fool people….
    , @Astuteobservor II
    what I didn't like was you evading a real conversation while attacking the article and author in question for "lack" of response/correction, while shirking the same for yourself :()

    upset :)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

    what a retard. only a retard would think others can get upset over his retarded posts over the internet :)))

  162. I sense Hasbara in a lot of the replies. They are a “flash mob” against what the Saker has to say. As a general rule, the people who frequent the Unz Review do not lower themselves to cheap ad hominem arguments.

    The Saker has done an excellent job of referencing a cornucopia of evidence regarding alternative narratives about 9/11. I doubt if the provocateurs bothered to read any of them … hence, the cheap shots.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jacques Sheete

    As a general rule, the people who frequent the Unz Review do not lower themselves to cheap ad hominem arguments.
     
    I've noticed that too. Once the ad hominems start, I leave. The Marxists and their sympathizers were famous for that sort of thing as well.

    I wonder what they hope to accomplish when they initiate personal attacks against other commenters. Do they really think that people come here to read their opinions about other commenters? If so then it speaks volumes about them. If not, then what? They bored er something?

    BTW, I have a question directed to those who believe the government's version of events, and I've never had any answer at all. Where do you get your faith???

  163. edNels [AKA "geoshmoe"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Boris

    what in the flaming hell does my feelings have to do with any of this?
     
    You seem upset. You have been complaining about one post and making strange demands. Nothing you are saying makes any sense.

    So far all I can see is that you REALLY didn't like a post I made. If you have a point, then make it.

    You sound just the same as the computer in the movie: Space Odessy.

    ”Hal you seem upset… ” Very neuter sounding, condescending, concerned.

    Hall had to take a couple a cards out, to get it to work right.

    Cutting edge computers/software, think they can fool people….

    Read More
    • Replies: @Boris
    I am a big Kubrik fan, but I find A Clockwork Orange and The Shining superior to 2001.

    Wait. Those two movies involve human beings having their free will taken over by outside forces: the Ludovico technique and the spirits of the Overlook hotel, respectively. You may be onto something here...
  164. anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Jonathan Revusky

    I am, by the way, a Professional Engineer with a degree in Civil Engineering.
     
    Oh really, where is your degree from?

    Hasbara University

    Read More
  165. @Boris

    what in the flaming hell does my feelings have to do with any of this?
     
    You seem upset. You have been complaining about one post and making strange demands. Nothing you are saying makes any sense.

    So far all I can see is that you REALLY didn't like a post I made. If you have a point, then make it.

    what I didn’t like was you evading a real conversation while attacking the article and author in question for “lack” of response/correction, while shirking the same for yourself :()

    upset :)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

    what a retard. only a retard would think others can get upset over his retarded posts over the internet :)))

    Read More
    • Replies: @Boris

    what I didn’t like
     
    God, are you going to cry? Get a hold of yourself. You won't like everything on the internet, but it's okay.

    you evading a real conversation while attacking the article and author in question for “lack” of response/correction
     
    There you are demanding that I talk what you want to talk about. Life must be tough for you if you go around asking dumb questions and then calling people "retard" when they don't want to answer you.

    while shirking the same for yourself :()
     
    Well, if you want credibility, you might want to correct obvious errors. A disinterest in correcting errors suggests that one doesn't care about credibility. That's fine. It's clear that The Saker doesn't care about the record and nor do his readers. At least they are apathetic. You seem bothered that someone would dare even to point the errors out. Weird.

    upset :)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
     
    Keep slamming that parentheses key. It's therapeutic!

    what a retard. only a retard would think others can get upset over his retarded posts over the internet :)))
     
    You're right I should make a correction. I never called you a fucking idiot. There. Record corrected.
  166. @Rurik
    great article!

    thank you Saker, for an appropriate tribute to the victims and their families who lost their lives on that day. What better way to memorialize them than to ask for an investigation to find their killers?

    >>><<<

    as an aside, I'm reasonably certain that jets hit the towers, as the films of them doing so seems to me exactly what such a thing would look like. Also after the first tower was struck, they would have expected a lot of eyes (and cameras) on the general scene, and therefor would have needed the jets, if that was going to be the narrative. IMO.

    but the details and minutia are often a (deliberate) distraction. With any effort at all, y0u can find a massive abundance of evidence that this was a false flag attack, orchestrated by the Mossad and elements at the highest levels of our government and media. It isn't unprecedented, they've done false flags to foment all the wars, in one form or another. And as with the attack in the USS Liberty, we all know the entire edifice of our federal government and MSM will circle the wagons and all collude to protect our 'special relationship', even when it means sacrificing American citizens, like they did when Johnson/McNamara ordered the jets that were scrambled to assist the Liberty to return. Twice.

    So I have known of the murderous treachery and outright treason that lurks at the heart of my federal government for quite some time now. 911 was for me a wakeup call that they had every intention of making the 21st century just as bloody and horrific as the last one was. And that's saying a lot!

    God speed to all who are trying to prevent them from doing that.

    I’m glad you have also made the point that I did at #140, namely that once the first tower was belching smoke there would have been huge numbers of eyes and cameras sure to catch whatever happened to the second tower. The only commenter who seems to have a defensibly coherent account of what may have happened which involves US or Israeli pperatives is CalDre – not that i actually believe his version.

    Read More
  167. @Rurik

    Who would ever concoct such a plan? Imagine yourself as one of the planners of the operation. Your operatives, by and large, cannot speak English, so you send them to America over a year before the operation, to first study English, so that they can learn to fly a plane in a flight school in which the language of instruction is English…
     
    they made sure their patsies were well-groomed

    You know, there is another aspect of this I hadn’t thought about for a while.

    Remember the guy who was supposed to be the 20th hijacker, but they took him into custody? Zacarias Moussaoui. French Arab ethnic, born in France. He’s still alive, but they have in a supermax prison somewhere, basically buried alive. I suppose nobody can go talk to him. Also, they probably had him in solitary for years and his mind doubtless snapped. This guy…

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

    Actually, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zacarias_Moussaoui#Flight_training

    From February 26 to May 29, 2001, Moussaoui attended flight training courses at Airman Flight School in Norman, Oklahoma. Despite 57 hours of flying lessons, he failed and left without ever having flown solo. This school was visited by Mohamed Atta and Marwan al-Shehhi, who piloted planes into the north and south towers of the World Trade Center.

    This guy, Moussaoui, by all accounts, could hardly speak English. He had some kind of kangaroo trial in which he acted as his own lawyer. Figure that one out. Or maybe he realized that the public defender lawyer that he was assigned was going to sell him down the river so he decided to be his own lawyer. But the guy couldn’t speak English hardly, it seems.

    So, the guy was in America trying to learn to fly a plane. There in Norman, Oklahoma. He was born in France and was fluent in French. Why would he not just study how to fly the plane somewhere in France???!!!

    I just did a quick google search: “aéroclub école de pilotage”. Here are the results:

    https://www.google.es/#q=a%C3%A9roclub+%C3%A9cole+de+pilotage

    What comes up is an extensive list of private flight academies, mostly in France, where one could go learn to fly a plane. Every last one of these, presumably, the language of instruction is French.

    Why would a Frenchman who cannot speak English hardly worth a damn go to the USA to study how to fly a plane when he could just go to a flight school in France? Where the language of instruction is his native language…

    Did he ask the court to consider this basic question before they locked him up in the Supermax prison for life?

    Or conversely, if you had to go learn how to fly a plane, and you’re a native English speaker living in the USA, why would you go to any of these flight academies where the language of instruction is French??!! Like, even if you had some rudimentary high school French, why would you ever do that, when you could just go to one of these places in your own country, where you could study in English?

    You know, even on the basis of this kind of consideration, it’s just so obvious that these people are framed, they’re patsies. It’s the only explanation. The narrative is impossible.

    But it’s not like this is the only glitch in the story. And, of course, the physical evidence relating to the collapse of the buildings is harder evidence certainly, but even just something like this…. it’s like… mind-boggling really, the absurd aspects of the narrative.

    Read More
  168. @Astuteobservor II
    what I didn't like was you evading a real conversation while attacking the article and author in question for "lack" of response/correction, while shirking the same for yourself :()

    upset :)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

    what a retard. only a retard would think others can get upset over his retarded posts over the internet :)))

    what I didn’t like

    God, are you going to cry? Get a hold of yourself. You won’t like everything on the internet, but it’s okay.

    you evading a real conversation while attacking the article and author in question for “lack” of response/correction

    There you are demanding that I talk what you want to talk about. Life must be tough for you if you go around asking dumb questions and then calling people “retard” when they don’t want to answer you.

    while shirking the same for yourself :()

    Well, if you want credibility, you might want to correct obvious errors. A disinterest in correcting errors suggests that one doesn’t care about credibility. That’s fine. It’s clear that The Saker doesn’t care about the record and nor do his readers. At least they are apathetic. You seem bothered that someone would dare even to point the errors out. Weird.

    upset :)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

    Keep slamming that parentheses key. It’s therapeutic!

    what a retard. only a retard would think others can get upset over his retarded posts over the internet :)))

    You’re right I should make a correction. I never called you a fucking idiot. There. Record corrected.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Astuteobservor II
    I love it :) I should stop, but it is so hard not to pick on retards like you :)

    :))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) pounding away :) hahahahah
  169. @edNels


    You sound just the same as the computer in the movie: Space Odessy.

    ''Hal you seem upset… '' Very neuter sounding, condescending, concerned.

    Hall had to take a couple a cards out, to get it to work right.

    Cutting edge computers/software, think they can fool people….

    I am a big Kubrik fan, but I find A Clockwork Orange and The Shining superior to 2001.

    Wait. Those two movies involve human beings having their free will taken over by outside forces: the Ludovico technique and the spirits of the Overlook hotel, respectively. You may be onto something here…

    Read More
    • Replies: @vetran

    I am a big Kubrik fan, but ...
     
    What about Dr Strangelove?
    Is the 9/11 a Dr Strangelove coming true when a bunch of insane but very powerful individuals (PNAC anyone?) wanted to reorder the Middle east and propping up the military industrial complex?
  170. @Boris

    what I didn’t like
     
    God, are you going to cry? Get a hold of yourself. You won't like everything on the internet, but it's okay.

    you evading a real conversation while attacking the article and author in question for “lack” of response/correction
     
    There you are demanding that I talk what you want to talk about. Life must be tough for you if you go around asking dumb questions and then calling people "retard" when they don't want to answer you.

    while shirking the same for yourself :()
     
    Well, if you want credibility, you might want to correct obvious errors. A disinterest in correcting errors suggests that one doesn't care about credibility. That's fine. It's clear that The Saker doesn't care about the record and nor do his readers. At least they are apathetic. You seem bothered that someone would dare even to point the errors out. Weird.

    upset :)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
     
    Keep slamming that parentheses key. It's therapeutic!

    what a retard. only a retard would think others can get upset over his retarded posts over the internet :)))
     
    You're right I should make a correction. I never called you a fucking idiot. There. Record corrected.

    I love it :) I should stop, but it is so hard not to pick on retards like you :)

    :))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) pounding away :) hahahahah

    Read More
  171. Unz Review is still publishing this fraud, with his twisted logic (or rather lack thereof) and circular arguments?

    Go to The Faker’s campy blog right now. You will see that this old school soviet agitprop operator has been pretty quiet about the latest instance of Putin getting his ass handed to him in Syria. And for some reason, the comment sections have been frozen for a couple days…

    I can understand that it is hard for The Faker to explain to his gullible readers why every single time people the Russian government supposedly support make progress on the battlefield, like in the Donbass region in Ukraine or in Syria, suddenly, the Russia government strikes a ceasefire deal with the U.S.

    Every. Single. Time!

    It’s good cop/bad cop folks and they’ve been playing the world for fools all along. The U.S. and Russia are working hand in hand in the destruction of Europe. That is the number one goal. It involves a lot of propaganda of course. Who has not noticed the vile anti-white, anti-European, anti-European American propaganda on RT?

    As far as The Faker’s argumentation on 9/11… I guess he should send it to Putin and Lavrov… They certainly do not seem to be aware…

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    Post 169: "I sense Hasbara in a lot of the replies. They are a “flash mob” against what the Saker has to say. As a general rule, the people who frequent the Unz Review do not lower themselves to cheap ad hominem arguments."
  172. @Wizard of Oz
    The Saker knows a little bit about some things mostly related to Russia and can sometimes say some interesting or thought provoking things about them. But if he wants also to have enough credibility to persuade anyone of anything he thinks important he should refrain from behaving like a prevocious but itresponsible and excitable 15 year old.

    I doubt that he has himself read that wholly inconclusive piece he proffered in full from the "Open Chemical Physics Journal" but he might have saved others time that could be better spent by acknowledging that it is from one of the predatory publishers, based in Sharjah, with no proper peer review, and that charges $800 to have an article published. And isn't the key scientist, Steven Jones of Brigham Young University until suspended, the notorious Cold Fusion fraud or nutter?

    Interesting that if one conscientiously Googles "What is active thermitic material" it is virtually all related to 9/11 though you do get a lot of sense out of the Wikipedia entry on thermite and controlled demolition of the WTC buildings. Here's a challenge to the enthusiasts. First read and understand the Wikipedia entry then have a go at editing it to suit your narrative. And don't give up but report your efforts and what happens to them on UR.

    As for the report by NIST which The Saker invites us to read though I doubt that he has read it all.... Saker the scientific polymath says it adds up to total BS because it admits - actually it calculates and asserts - that WTC 7's collapse included 2.25 seconds of falling at close to free fall speed! Devastating according to the all purpose opiniator and know all.

    Here’s a challenge to the enthusiasts. First read and understand the Wikipedia entry then have a go at editing it to suit your narrative. And don’t give up but report your efforts and what happens to them on UR.
    —-
    Editing wikipedia articles on fungus reproduction and editing articles on a politically charged topic like 9/11 are not the same.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    No doubt. Which would make an account of attempts at editing and relevant correspondence all the more interesting.
  173. @Chaban
    Unz Review is still publishing this fraud, with his twisted logic (or rather lack thereof) and circular arguments?

    Go to The Faker's campy blog right now. You will see that this old school soviet agitprop operator has been pretty quiet about the latest instance of Putin getting his ass handed to him in Syria. And for some reason, the comment sections have been frozen for a couple days...

    I can understand that it is hard for The Faker to explain to his gullible readers why every single time people the Russian government supposedly support make progress on the battlefield, like in the Donbass region in Ukraine or in Syria, suddenly, the Russia government strikes a ceasefire deal with the U.S.

    Every. Single. Time!

    It's good cop/bad cop folks and they've been playing the world for fools all along. The U.S. and Russia are working hand in hand in the destruction of Europe. That is the number one goal. It involves a lot of propaganda of course. Who has not noticed the vile anti-white, anti-European, anti-European American propaganda on RT?

    As far as The Faker's argumentation on 9/11... I guess he should send it to Putin and Lavrov... They certainly do not seem to be aware...

    Post 169: “I sense Hasbara in a lot of the replies. They are a “flash mob” against what the Saker has to say. As a general rule, the people who frequent the Unz Review do not lower themselves to cheap ad hominem arguments.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Chaban
    Haaaaa... the old "hasbara" argument.

    Pity that I, unlike Vladimir Putin, did not get the Israeli citizen award in 2015...

    I, unlike Putin, would not have imposed a law on my people to jail anyone who questions a certain aspect of official history up to FIVE years.

    Ohhhh, dear Anna, always in the wings to cover for The Faker... almost as if all this stuff is coordinated... But noooooooo.... that could not be. ;-)

    Hey, I have not seen any "imminent collapse of the U.S. economy" articles in a while. What's going on? I kind of miss them. You kind of get used to them after 8 years of "imminence".

    In the end, your cheap shot does not change the situation on the ground for the good guys on the ground in Ukraine and in Syria: every time they make great military progress on the back of huge sacrifices, they get stabbed in the back. Every! Single! Time!

    Only THIS time, it was so obvious that a lot of people noticed.
  174. @Astuteobservor II
    if you are not willing to engage, why even bother in the first place?

    you called the author and his article into question with just a single point out of his entire article. when asked to seriously provide counter points, you feign lack of interest.

    how many comments have you posted thus far just for this article? with your "lack of interest"?

    talk about bizarre/contradicting behavior.

    just a single point out of his entire article. when asked to seriously provide counter points, you feign lack of interest
    —-
    Boris’s remark was pretty on point. “North face free falling” does not imply “whole floor free falling”. If one can start from “North face free falling” and arrive to “whole floor free falling” in a logical, step by step manner, using points contained in that NIST article, let’s see the reasoning.

    If you read a complex article in which one of the important points is “since the dog reads chinese, it must have been able to read the signs the warning signs on the walls of…”, it’s reasonable to ask the author to explain what exactly they mean by “since the dog reads chinese” and to stop reading the article, for the time being.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Astuteobservor II
    I never refuted that point of his. I asked him to do the same for the entire article and all the points.

    your example would make sense if the evidences and points was a chain and they all depend on the truthfulness of the previous evidence/point.

    the points/arguments/evidences/examples can all stand on their own.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuC_4mGTs98 like this video. the points/questions can all stand on their own ground. together they make a pretty good case.
  175. @Jane Claire
    It was a terrorist attack and there is no reason to believe it wasn't. How they were always able to do these attacks during drills going back to the first Gulf War is a mystery. Congress had signed the authorization to remove Saddam Hussein in 1998 during the Clinton administration. We had a no fly zone on the country for years. Hillary had written an article for the NYT about the women of Afghanistan and how she wanted her husband to do something. There were plenty of books out to help people feel sympathy for certain groups in the middle east about how these rebels are mistreated. Hillary was walking a young wanna be lawyer at the time around congress to talk about the other women in Afghanistan who want rights like her. But the authorization for Iraq was in 1998.
    After 911 this magic coalition appeared to go into not Iraq but Afghanistan. So off we went to get al qaida and Osama bin Laden, except we never bothered to do that but ran past the crusader Bin Laden and went for the Taliban instead, with us fighting beside the Northern Alliance who the Taliban had ousted from power and whose old leader made a home at the UN. Somewhere add in the UN's R2P or responsibility to protect.
    But there was still the resolution for Iraq that was signed in 1998 and where is al qaida?
    The entire narrative about terrorists filtered out because of Afghanistan, Bill Clinton bombed some empty bunkers there after the USS Cole was bombed as retaliation for killing for the killing of our sailors not by the Taliban but some ghosts someone claimed was in Afghanistan.
    But we still had a no fly zone and resolution against Iraq from 1998. It took ol George two years to put something together for Iraq, because once you occupy it, according to the Geneva Convention you have to rebuild it. Congress laid the blame for Iraq squarely with the Bush administration, it was the left who started the whole 911 truth movement so filled with lies against the Bush administration that by this point no one can see straight. So at what point in time will the left tell us where is al qaida? Was the Taliban, Al Assad, Mubarak, Gaddafi etc
    al qaida? You mean the left with their Arab spring and throwing out almost every leader in the Middle East wasn't going to take out Saddam too when there was a resolution to do so authorized in 1998?
    Anyway it's just a theory of mine with a couple of facts thrown in for good measure. I voted for Bush because he ran on giving a tax break the left deplored, and before they run off at the mouth about how small it was for them Congress decided where the money went and the left doesn't pay much taxes anyway, and the other platform stand was no nation building. So you can blame Bush for Iraq all day, the rest belongs to you.

    “So you can blame Bush for Iraq all day, the rest belongs to you.”

    You mean the 5 trillion US$ (and running) that the Bush’ unfunded 9and illegal) wars have inflicted on the US citizenry? There was also the maculate conception of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan by the US; you might want to check the allegiance of the “moderate” jihadis in today’s Syria, whom the US have been funding. It is also very hard – almost impossible – to overlook this speech by General Clark, “Wars Were Planned – Seven Countries In Five Years:” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RC1Mepk_Sw (Yinon plan?)
    As Colonel Lang forcefully proposed, this country must reintroduce a near-universal national conscription, the plutocrats’ children leading the charge in combat in the future wars.

    Read More
  176. @ogunsiron
    just a single point out of his entire article. when asked to seriously provide counter points, you feign lack of interest
    ----
    Boris's remark was pretty on point. "North face free falling" does not imply "whole floor free falling". If one can start from "North face free falling" and arrive to "whole floor free falling" in a logical, step by step manner, using points contained in that NIST article, let's see the reasoning.

    If you read a complex article in which one of the important points is "since the dog reads chinese, it must have been able to read the signs the warning signs on the walls of...", it's reasonable to ask the author to explain what exactly they mean by "since the dog reads chinese" and to stop reading the article, for the time being.

    I never refuted that point of his. I asked him to do the same for the entire article and all the points.

    your example would make sense if the evidences and points was a chain and they all depend on the truthfulness of the previous evidence/point.

    the points/arguments/evidences/examples can all stand on their own.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuC_4mGTs98 like this video. the points/questions can all stand on their own ground. together they make a pretty good case.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Boris

    your example would make sense if the evidences and points was a chain and they all depend on the truthfulness of the previous evidence/point.
     
    Technically true. But the reason I chose the 2.25 seconds of freefall is because it is based on the NIST report itself. Admitting error on this one point would not prove the government story to be true. The "NIST admitted it, we win!" is a rhetorical point, but one that 9/11 truthers have become so invested in that it becomes hard to let go. And if they can't let it go, then it would be impossible to discuss the issues with "constant acceleration" because those are extremely technical and nuanced and dependent on the very language you see in the NIST report.

    So, yeah, I am not interested in the other points in the article right now.

    Oh, and others certainly see the importance of this point:

    https://voxday.blogspot.com/2016/09/observation-is-not-conspiracy.html

    Vox Day quotes The Saker's paragraph on freefall (but doesn't seem to cite him for some reason). Now, if you are going to have some clueless guy like Day blindly repeating you, you should probably check your work. No one wants to spread bad information.

    Or do they?
  177. @annamaria
    Post 169: "I sense Hasbara in a lot of the replies. They are a “flash mob” against what the Saker has to say. As a general rule, the people who frequent the Unz Review do not lower themselves to cheap ad hominem arguments."

    Haaaaa… the old “hasbara” argument.

    Pity that I, unlike Vladimir Putin, did not get the Israeli citizen award in 2015…

    I, unlike Putin, would not have imposed a law on my people to jail anyone who questions a certain aspect of official history up to FIVE years.

    Ohhhh, dear Anna, always in the wings to cover for The Faker… almost as if all this stuff is coordinated… But noooooooo…. that could not be. ;-)

    Hey, I have not seen any “imminent collapse of the U.S. economy” articles in a while. What’s going on? I kind of miss them. You kind of get used to them after 8 years of “imminence”.

    In the end, your cheap shot does not change the situation on the ground for the good guys on the ground in Ukraine and in Syria: every time they make great military progress on the back of huge sacrifices, they get stabbed in the back. Every! Single! Time!

    Only THIS time, it was so obvious that a lot of people noticed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    What was so cheap about reminding that ad hominem arguments are no arguments? This is UNZ review; the readers appreciate the coherent and well-argumented reasoning.
    Do you really believe that an open confrontation of two nuclear states could lead to something good?
  178. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Groovy Battle for Blair Mountian"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    The Journal that published the Jones-Harrit-Pace nanothermite study was dropped by its parent Company because several editors at the Open Journal of Chemistry Topics stated that the normal peer review process was not followed with the Jones-Harrit-Pace nanothermite paper. As a consequence, several of the editors resigned in protest.

    My own view is that it is a waste of time to respond to the nanothermite study. There have been 15 years of painstaking detailed-thorough explanations as to how the burning of jet fuel weakened steel beam structural integrity initiating the implosion….and a detailed refutation of the Truther free-fall nonsense.

    If the 9/11 Truthers can’t get it right on the physics and engineering of the collapse of the TT…ignore everything else that comes after.

    Much larger point:What happened on 9/11 is largely an insignificant event when compared the really big threat of Muslim Immigration which is:Muslim “Americans” are enthusiastically voting The Historic Native Born White Christian Majority into a violently persecuted racial minority on Nov 8 2016..pulling the lever for the Old Farting Adult Diaper Wearing Psychopathically Violent War Criminal Lesbian from Hell!!!

    Read More
    • Replies: @AnonAussie
    What you describe happening at the Chemistry journal sounds like the type of consequence of publishing the Harrit et al paper, that a Deep State may apply behind the scenes. A warning to any other academic journals.

    Yes I know, another conspiracy theory.
    But conspiracy is what the US Congressional investigation concluded killed JFK. Somehow (pressure behind scenes?) the DOJ did not follow through as requested.
  179. I wonder if Ron understands that publishing crap like this on his site undermines the reputation and credibility of his other bloggers. If someone wants to discredit Steve Sailer or Razib Khan, all they have to do is point out that they publish on a site that also promotes crackpot 9/11 truthers. I admire Sailer and Khan, and I think they are doing important work, so I find this very depressing.

    Read More
    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
    Perhaps some Prozac might help with your depression. As to this site and what Ron Unz chooses to publish, if you disapprove you might consider not visiting which might also be helpful in treating your depression. Articles written by the Saker along with Phillip Giraldi and others frequently attract the most commenters. The articles concerning 9/11 certainly do and the mindless name callers are usually shrieking their support of the patently false official account of events.
    , @5371
    Someone who takes the ludicrous "Razib" seriously is not someone whose opinion interests me.
  180. @Chaban
    Haaaaa... the old "hasbara" argument.

    Pity that I, unlike Vladimir Putin, did not get the Israeli citizen award in 2015...

    I, unlike Putin, would not have imposed a law on my people to jail anyone who questions a certain aspect of official history up to FIVE years.

    Ohhhh, dear Anna, always in the wings to cover for The Faker... almost as if all this stuff is coordinated... But noooooooo.... that could not be. ;-)

    Hey, I have not seen any "imminent collapse of the U.S. economy" articles in a while. What's going on? I kind of miss them. You kind of get used to them after 8 years of "imminence".

    In the end, your cheap shot does not change the situation on the ground for the good guys on the ground in Ukraine and in Syria: every time they make great military progress on the back of huge sacrifices, they get stabbed in the back. Every! Single! Time!

    Only THIS time, it was so obvious that a lot of people noticed.

    What was so cheap about reminding that ad hominem arguments are no arguments? This is UNZ review; the readers appreciate the coherent and well-argumented reasoning.
    Do you really believe that an open confrontation of two nuclear states could lead to something good?

    Read More
    • Agree: Jacques Sheete
    • Replies: @Chaban
    Oh, so "Muh... hasbara" is your coherent, well-argumented reasoning?

    Hey, do you think Lavrov sent some of that leftover pizza and vodka to the Syrian army Russia stabbed in the back?

    Might have helped ease the betrayal.
  181. @ogunsiron
    Here’s a challenge to the enthusiasts. First read and understand the Wikipedia entry then have a go at editing it to suit your narrative. And don’t give up but report your efforts and what happens to them on UR.
    ----
    Editing wikipedia articles on fungus reproduction and editing articles on a politically charged topic like 9/11 are not the same.

    No doubt. Which would make an account of attempts at editing and relevant correspondence all the more interesting.

    Read More
  182. @Robert Magill
    Truthers are very good at explaining what didn't happen but a little light 'splainin what did. Why the towers? Perhaps because they are so symbolic of our collective puissance. Why not nuke or chemical plants instead which would have caused real harm not symbolic taunting? Key word taunting. It worked. Still does. We took the bait and lost our minds and our pocketbooks.

    One REAL “truther” was unmentioned, the ONLY one that actually scientifically studied WHAT HAPPENED on 9-11 and wrote a textbook about it. She didn’t write about how, who or why, only about WHEN and WHAT happened. She was the only person, to my knowledge, who early on took a contractor (NIST) to court over lack of any analysis of the event (billing fraud). To this day “truthers”, when not flogging their own pet theories, are trying to come up with a plausible explanation that fits with the HARD FACTS Judy Woods laid out in her textbook about the events of 9-11. BTW,I have yet to see A&E or ANY “truthers” drag anyone into court. IMHO A&E is another LHO organization – just look at the corporate connections of the A&E leadership…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Robert Magill
    Interesting. I must check out Judy Woods. Thanks.

    “THE TRUTH is… anything you agree with and …faith makes it all possible”. https://robertmagill.wordpress.com/2016/09/10/faith-the-human-o-s-2/
  183. @annamaria
    What was so cheap about reminding that ad hominem arguments are no arguments? This is UNZ review; the readers appreciate the coherent and well-argumented reasoning.
    Do you really believe that an open confrontation of two nuclear states could lead to something good?

    Oh, so “Muh… hasbara” is your coherent, well-argumented reasoning?

    Hey, do you think Lavrov sent some of that leftover pizza and vodka to the Syrian army Russia stabbed in the back?

    Might have helped ease the betrayal.

    Read More
    • Replies: @5371
    You're a ridiculous circus geek going through his patter, louder and louder the fewer people are listening to him. Shut up, get lost, never come back.
    , @TheJester
    Harbara is here. QED.

    Who ... whom? Cui bono?
  184. @IMNAHA
    One REAL "truther" was unmentioned, the ONLY one that actually scientifically studied WHAT HAPPENED on 9-11 and wrote a textbook about it. She didn't write about how, who or why, only about WHEN and WHAT happened. She was the only person, to my knowledge, who early on took a contractor (NIST) to court over lack of any analysis of the event (billing fraud). To this day "truthers", when not flogging their own pet theories, are trying to come up with a plausible explanation that fits with the HARD FACTS Judy Woods laid out in her textbook about the events of 9-11. BTW,I have yet to see A&E or ANY "truthers" drag anyone into court. IMHO A&E is another LHO organization - just look at the corporate connections of the A&E leadership...

    Interesting. I must check out Judy Woods. Thanks.

    “THE TRUTH is… anything you agree with and …faith makes it all possible”. https://robertmagill.wordpress.com/2016/09/10/faith-the-human-o-s-2/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous Smith
    Judy Wood is a disinformation operative planted by the US government in order to discredit the 9/11 truth movement. Her "theory" was discredited 10 mins. after she first appeared. There are MANY disinformation operatives in the "Truther" movement...proceed with caution!

    If you want to learn more about how and why the buildings came down on 9/11 search: architects and engineers for 9/11 truth. That's a safe place to start.
  185. @TheJester
    I sense Hasbara in a lot of the replies. They are a "flash mob" against what the Saker has to say. As a general rule, the people who frequent the Unz Review do not lower themselves to cheap ad hominem arguments.

    The Saker has done an excellent job of referencing a cornucopia of evidence regarding alternative narratives about 9/11. I doubt if the provocateurs bothered to read any of them ... hence, the cheap shots.

    As a general rule, the people who frequent the Unz Review do not lower themselves to cheap ad hominem arguments.

    I’ve noticed that too. Once the ad hominems start, I leave. The Marxists and their sympathizers were famous for that sort of thing as well.

    I wonder what they hope to accomplish when they initiate personal attacks against other commenters. Do they really think that people come here to read their opinions about other commenters? If so then it speaks volumes about them. If not, then what? They bored er something?

    BTW, I have a question directed to those who believe the government’s version of events, and I’ve never had any answer at all. Where do you get your faith???

    Read More
  186. @Quartermaster
    I have watched the film of the collapse of the two main towers repeatedly and have come to the same conclusion every time. The fire heated the steel weakening it and in combination with the damaged structure on the side of impact, the buildings collapsed toward the impact side. Lower floors collapse as a result of the increased forces beyond the safety factor of the building design.

    I can't speak to the smaller tower as I've never seen any film on that, but asserting the two taller buildings were brought down by controlled demolition is silly.

    I am, by the way, a Professional Engineer with a degree in Civil Engineering.

    Your post proves only that you are a liar, either about being an engineer or about your impossible ‘reasoning’ on the cause of the collapses of the twin towers.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    What qualifications do you have to be taken seriously as an expert wrt Quartermaster's qualifications or his theory or "reasoning"? You sound very confident.
  187. @Jane Claire
    It was a terrorist attack and there is no reason to believe it wasn't. How they were always able to do these attacks during drills going back to the first Gulf War is a mystery. Congress had signed the authorization to remove Saddam Hussein in 1998 during the Clinton administration. We had a no fly zone on the country for years. Hillary had written an article for the NYT about the women of Afghanistan and how she wanted her husband to do something. There were plenty of books out to help people feel sympathy for certain groups in the middle east about how these rebels are mistreated. Hillary was walking a young wanna be lawyer at the time around congress to talk about the other women in Afghanistan who want rights like her. But the authorization for Iraq was in 1998.
    After 911 this magic coalition appeared to go into not Iraq but Afghanistan. So off we went to get al qaida and Osama bin Laden, except we never bothered to do that but ran past the crusader Bin Laden and went for the Taliban instead, with us fighting beside the Northern Alliance who the Taliban had ousted from power and whose old leader made a home at the UN. Somewhere add in the UN's R2P or responsibility to protect.
    But there was still the resolution for Iraq that was signed in 1998 and where is al qaida?
    The entire narrative about terrorists filtered out because of Afghanistan, Bill Clinton bombed some empty bunkers there after the USS Cole was bombed as retaliation for killing for the killing of our sailors not by the Taliban but some ghosts someone claimed was in Afghanistan.
    But we still had a no fly zone and resolution against Iraq from 1998. It took ol George two years to put something together for Iraq, because once you occupy it, according to the Geneva Convention you have to rebuild it. Congress laid the blame for Iraq squarely with the Bush administration, it was the left who started the whole 911 truth movement so filled with lies against the Bush administration that by this point no one can see straight. So at what point in time will the left tell us where is al qaida? Was the Taliban, Al Assad, Mubarak, Gaddafi etc
    al qaida? You mean the left with their Arab spring and throwing out almost every leader in the Middle East wasn't going to take out Saddam too when there was a resolution to do so authorized in 1998?
    Anyway it's just a theory of mine with a couple of facts thrown in for good measure. I voted for Bush because he ran on giving a tax break the left deplored, and before they run off at the mouth about how small it was for them Congress decided where the money went and the left doesn't pay much taxes anyway, and the other platform stand was no nation building. So you can blame Bush for Iraq all day, the rest belongs to you.

    Much as I care greatly for America and the countless good-hearted people that I encountered in my many years living there, it is people such as yourself that remind me that, whether by such a thing as karma or by the law of cause and effect, it must be that the American people should suffer greatly along with the British, Canadians, Australians and all other peoples who joined in on the criminal enterprise that makes up the post 9/11 wars of aggression.

    Read More
  188. @Rurik
    great article!

    thank you Saker, for an appropriate tribute to the victims and their families who lost their lives on that day. What better way to memorialize them than to ask for an investigation to find their killers?

    >>><<<

    as an aside, I'm reasonably certain that jets hit the towers, as the films of them doing so seems to me exactly what such a thing would look like. Also after the first tower was struck, they would have expected a lot of eyes (and cameras) on the general scene, and therefor would have needed the jets, if that was going to be the narrative. IMO.

    but the details and minutia are often a (deliberate) distraction. With any effort at all, y0u can find a massive abundance of evidence that this was a false flag attack, orchestrated by the Mossad and elements at the highest levels of our government and media. It isn't unprecedented, they've done false flags to foment all the wars, in one form or another. And as with the attack in the USS Liberty, we all know the entire edifice of our federal government and MSM will circle the wagons and all collude to protect our 'special relationship', even when it means sacrificing American citizens, like they did when Johnson/McNamara ordered the jets that were scrambled to assist the Liberty to return. Twice.

    So I have known of the murderous treachery and outright treason that lurks at the heart of my federal government for quite some time now. 911 was for me a wakeup call that they had every intention of making the 21st century just as bloody and horrific as the last one was. And that's saying a lot!

    God speed to all who are trying to prevent them from doing that.

    Agreed Rurik. Any decent human being with morals and a functioning brain should know that the official story if blatantly false and so they should focus their efforts on demanding a full, open and independent investigation. I have some theories myself on the who and how but these only serve to distract and give succour to the vast numbers of fools and traitors who claim “conspiracy theory” every time a legitimate question is raised about these world changing events.

    Read More
  189. @jb
    I wonder if Ron understands that publishing crap like this on his site undermines the reputation and credibility of his other bloggers. If someone wants to discredit Steve Sailer or Razib Khan, all they have to do is point out that they publish on a site that also promotes crackpot 9/11 truthers. I admire Sailer and Khan, and I think they are doing important work, so I find this very depressing.

    Perhaps some Prozac might help with your depression. As to this site and what Ron Unz chooses to publish, if you disapprove you might consider not visiting which might also be helpful in treating your depression. Articles written by the Saker along with Phillip Giraldi and others frequently attract the most commenters. The articles concerning 9/11 certainly do and the mindless name callers are usually shrieking their support of the patently false official account of events.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jb
    Anybody can say anything.

    I could declare that the "official story" of the moon landing was "patently false," and demand that you prove -- to my satisfaction! -- that I was wrong. You would of course fail, and I would take your failure as proof that I was right. If I could gather a fringe of crackpots around me, we could start quoting each other, and that would be further proof. We could declare ourselves to be a vast legion of experts, and assert that we had already disproved the official story beyond any reasonable doubt, and that all who disagreed were either delusional or part of the conspiracy. We could do all of those things.

    What we would not be able to do is win any real acceptance for our lunacy! Even the author of this article is forced to acknowledge that your movement has "mostly failed" in that regard. There is a reason for that. You can pretend otherwise, but the reason you remain on the fringe, and will continue to remain on the fringe, is that with very few exceptions, every serious person with any knowledge or expertise in the matter considers you all to be a pack of fools.

    What you can possibly do, unfortunately, is discredit other serious people who are associated with this site. And this, quite reasonably, makes me sad.
  190. @Wizard of Oz
    The Saker knows a little bit about some things mostly related to Russia and can sometimes say some interesting or thought provoking things about them. But if he wants also to have enough credibility to persuade anyone of anything he thinks important he should refrain from behaving like a prevocious but itresponsible and excitable 15 year old.

    I doubt that he has himself read that wholly inconclusive piece he proffered in full from the "Open Chemical Physics Journal" but he might have saved others time that could be better spent by acknowledging that it is from one of the predatory publishers, based in Sharjah, with no proper peer review, and that charges $800 to have an article published. And isn't the key scientist, Steven Jones of Brigham Young University until suspended, the notorious Cold Fusion fraud or nutter?

    Interesting that if one conscientiously Googles "What is active thermitic material" it is virtually all related to 9/11 though you do get a lot of sense out of the Wikipedia entry on thermite and controlled demolition of the WTC buildings. Here's a challenge to the enthusiasts. First read and understand the Wikipedia entry then have a go at editing it to suit your narrative. And don't give up but report your efforts and what happens to them on UR.

    As for the report by NIST which The Saker invites us to read though I doubt that he has read it all.... Saker the scientific polymath says it adds up to total BS because it admits - actually it calculates and asserts - that WTC 7's collapse included 2.25 seconds of falling at close to free fall speed! Devastating according to the all purpose opiniator and know all.

    So Wizard – I presume you go with the utterly implausible official theory?
    Here it is as a reminder: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yuC_4mGTs98

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Thanks for reminding me of that amusing YouTube skit.

    I have no dogs in any of the related US fights. If 9/11 really was the hypothetical Pearl Harbour (but USIsraeli manufactured on a truther view) which seems to be a genuine part of the 1997-8 PNAC doc then I am pleased that John Howard - who was in DC in walking distance from the Pentagon - only got us enough involved in Iraq to lose one soldier (who actually shot himself). I was never for the Iraq invasion but what Australia should have done is arguable.

    In retrospect I would hope that I might have formed a view against invading Afghanistan too. Just bombing the Taliban until they gave up or got rid of bin Laden would have made more sense.

    So, where am I at? I can just about put together a consistent account of what happened if one assumes that Cheney and co were ruthless traitors and ideologues. But I am far from persuadedd that the reality was other than that some Al Qaeda connected or inspired individual or group conspired to put together four teams equipped to hijack four planes one morning in the NE of the US and crash them into symbolically and/or practical symbols or institutions of US wealth and power with many expected deaths.

    Most, though not all, truthers are fruitcakes who at best just like raising their voices in the manner of the pub bore to keep up a reputation they hope they have for heterodoxy. Thus Rurik, who seems to be a successful builder/developer with some knowledge of metal and other structures exhibits the confident assertiveness and decisiveness which may well go with business success but doesn't add up to a row of beans when, probably relying on what he read and saw 8 or 10 years ago, he writes of "all the laws of physics and structural engineering". And he's not one of the true nutters! I think CalDre is the only truther commenter that seems to be able to give serious doubt a fighting chance by making his hypotheses consistent and not depending on something totally balmy like CGI in lieu of actual aircraft.

  191. @War for Blair Mountain
    The Journal that published the Jones-Harrit-Pace nanothermite study was dropped by its parent Company because several editors at the Open Journal of Chemistry Topics stated that the normal peer review process was not followed with the Jones-Harrit-Pace nanothermite paper. As a consequence, several of the editors resigned in protest.

    My own view is that it is a waste of time to respond to the nanothermite study. There have been 15 years of painstaking detailed-thorough explanations as to how the burning of jet fuel weakened steel beam structural integrity initiating the implosion....and a detailed refutation of the Truther free-fall nonsense.


    If the 9/11 Truthers can't get it right on the physics and engineering of the collapse of the TT...ignore everything else that comes after.

    Much larger point:What happened on 9/11 is largely an insignificant event when compared the really big threat of Muslim Immigration which is:Muslim "Americans" are enthusiastically voting The Historic Native Born White Christian Majority into a violently persecuted racial minority on Nov 8 2016..pulling the lever for the Old Farting Adult Diaper Wearing Psychopathically Violent War Criminal Lesbian from Hell!!!

    What you describe happening at the Chemistry journal sounds like the type of consequence of publishing the Harrit et al paper, that a Deep State may apply behind the scenes. A warning to any other academic journals.

    Yes I know, another conspiracy theory.
    But conspiracy is what the US Congressional investigation concluded killed JFK. Somehow (pressure behind scenes?) the DOJ did not follow through as requested.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    You should have done some research on those Bentham brand predatory open scientific journals before firing your reflex defensive waffle.
  192. @Robert Magill
    Interesting. I must check out Judy Woods. Thanks.

    “THE TRUTH is… anything you agree with and …faith makes it all possible”. https://robertmagill.wordpress.com/2016/09/10/faith-the-human-o-s-2/

    Judy Wood is a disinformation operative planted by the US government in order to discredit the 9/11 truth movement. Her “theory” was discredited 10 mins. after she first appeared. There are MANY disinformation operatives in the “Truther” movement…proceed with caution!

    If you want to learn more about how and why the buildings came down on 9/11 search: architects and engineers for 9/11 truth. That’s a safe place to start.

    Read More
    • Replies: @L.K
    Anonymous Smith:

    Judy Wood is a disinformation operative planted by the US government in order to discredit the 9/11 truth movement.
     
    Exactly.
  193. @Boris

    To make a long story short, NIST, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, has been forced to admit that for 2.25 seconds WTC7 (which, by the way, was not hit by any aircraft on that day), was collapsing a free-fall acceleration. This is only possible if 8 floors of this huge buildings were removed instantly and symmetrically.
     
    Okay, this is a specific claim that is either true or false and The Saker points to a specific source, even a specific figure and page number (thanks!). Let's check:

    In Stage 2, the north face descended at gravitational acceleration, as the buckled columns provided negligible support to the upper portion of the north face.
     
    NIST is very clear here that they are referring to "the north face" of WT7. The Saker and others infer that this means the entire building. Is that justified?

    Well, return to the report. The report describes the collapse of the building beginning with interior supports, specifically column 79. So the NIST says that the interior of the building failed first. This is visible in videos of the collapse as the east penthouse falls from view about 5 seconds before the north face begins its collapse:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkOGkdNq13k

    Table 3-1 has a clear list of events in the collapse.

    So, by the time the "north face" collapses, the interior supports are no longer supporting it. The free fall period does NOT occur at the beginning of the collapse of the north face, but nearly 2 seconds in . This is perfectly consistent with the failure of exterior columns supporting the north face.

    Substituting the entire building for what the NIST calls "the north face" is not justified and ignores the NIST description of the collapse in the very same source. Sorry, but the NIST did not "admit" anything here and it appears that The Saker is simply misreading the source.

    Revealing that there are no replies to the devastating point. My experience is that when pinned down on a specific argument, they change the subject. Confirmed here.

    Read More
  194. full of sound and fury…but the fundamentals, motive, opportunity, smoking guns and so on points to the Arabs. The US did not need a 9-11 to do its work for the Jews. The jews did not need a 9-11 to hammer the Arabs.

    The Neocons had put their Jewish Century into operation much earlier.
    (9-11-01 was about Israel, caused by Israel, and benefitting Israel)

    All the who dunnits make good Stories, but the Who Benefits argument is simple: Israel, or so they think.

    Americans have had enough of ME wars, except against Isis.

    I dunno if the US and Russia and various Arab groups/militaries can beat Isis, but Isis is still fundamentally a subset of motivations which can be laid at the feet of the jews..

    Dismantle Israel, or have the jews pay for what they stole….make a deal with Palestine…and maybe the thing will settle down.

    Of course, the silver lining in the cloud has been the Migrant wave of stupid, horny, and Free Money seekers to Awaken Europe to the muzzies. I doubt that the jews thought about this inasmuch their general immigration policies for White lands is to subvert them slowly enough that nobody notices….until it is too late.

    Whether it is Too Late for Europe is too early to judge. Europeans have only about ten per cent of their populations as muzzle, which seems likely to be considered a plausible chunk of people that can be removed.

    The US is much worse, with almost 40 per cent of our folks being third world and stupid, violent, and often lazy, particularly blacks.

    I notice in the jewyorktimes, the Blow Black columnist complains that indeed Billary was right, that the deplorables are about half of Trump voters. Blow complains that about half of Trump voters think Blacks do lots more crime that whites, are lazy, and dumb?I forget. OF course none of this is True per Blow.

    What I notice these days is that the Dems usually Hate while the Trumpers like myself are merely disgusted. Hillary…it would be so nice if she was not here. Then the niggers of nigger ball with I am told, the quarter back wearing sox with little piglike cops represented on them…..the white patrons should march out all the while shouting , fuk the ungrateful niggers, go back to Africa.

    Joe Webb…..this is just the run-up to civil war.

    Read More
  195. @Astuteobservor II
    I never refuted that point of his. I asked him to do the same for the entire article and all the points.

    your example would make sense if the evidences and points was a chain and they all depend on the truthfulness of the previous evidence/point.

    the points/arguments/evidences/examples can all stand on their own.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuC_4mGTs98 like this video. the points/questions can all stand on their own ground. together they make a pretty good case.

    your example would make sense if the evidences and points was a chain and they all depend on the truthfulness of the previous evidence/point.

    Technically true. But the reason I chose the 2.25 seconds of freefall is because it is based on the NIST report itself. Admitting error on this one point would not prove the government story to be true. The “NIST admitted it, we win!” is a rhetorical point, but one that 9/11 truthers have become so invested in that it becomes hard to let go. And if they can’t let it go, then it would be impossible to discuss the issues with “constant acceleration” because those are extremely technical and nuanced and dependent on the very language you see in the NIST report.

    So, yeah, I am not interested in the other points in the article right now.

    Oh, and others certainly see the importance of this point:

    https://voxday.blogspot.com/2016/09/observation-is-not-conspiracy.html

    Vox Day quotes The Saker’s paragraph on freefall (but doesn’t seem to cite him for some reason). Now, if you are going to have some clueless guy like Day blindly repeating you, you should probably check your work. No one wants to spread bad information.

    Or do they?

    Read More
  196. @NoseytheDuke
    Perhaps some Prozac might help with your depression. As to this site and what Ron Unz chooses to publish, if you disapprove you might consider not visiting which might also be helpful in treating your depression. Articles written by the Saker along with Phillip Giraldi and others frequently attract the most commenters. The articles concerning 9/11 certainly do and the mindless name callers are usually shrieking their support of the patently false official account of events.

    Anybody can say anything.

    I could declare that the “official story” of the moon landing was “patently false,” and demand that you prove — to my satisfaction! — that I was wrong. You would of course fail, and I would take your failure as proof that I was right. If I could gather a fringe of crackpots around me, we could start quoting each other, and that would be further proof. We could declare ourselves to be a vast legion of experts, and assert that we had already disproved the official story beyond any reasonable doubt, and that all who disagreed were either delusional or part of the conspiracy. We could do all of those things.

    What we would not be able to do is win any real acceptance for our lunacy! Even the author of this article is forced to acknowledge that your movement has “mostly failed” in that regard. There is a reason for that. You can pretend otherwise, but the reason you remain on the fringe, and will continue to remain on the fringe, is that with very few exceptions, every serious person with any knowledge or expertise in the matter considers you all to be a pack of fools.

    What you can possibly do, unfortunately, is discredit other serious people who are associated with this site. And this, quite reasonably, makes me sad.

    Read More
    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
    You can also be sad about the accelerated decline of the ZUSA assisted by dupes such as yourself who seem incapable of digesting the fact that 9/11 was an inside job, brought about to involve the American people in ruinous wars for the benefit of a foreign power that not only spies on ZUSA more than any other nation but also extorts more taxpayer money than any other nation.

    One day it is possible that the penny will drop for you but most likely much too late. You'll have done your bit though so sadness is the least of your just dessert.
  197. @Anonymous Smith
    Judy Wood is a disinformation operative planted by the US government in order to discredit the 9/11 truth movement. Her "theory" was discredited 10 mins. after she first appeared. There are MANY disinformation operatives in the "Truther" movement...proceed with caution!

    If you want to learn more about how and why the buildings came down on 9/11 search: architects and engineers for 9/11 truth. That's a safe place to start.

    Anonymous Smith:

    Judy Wood is a disinformation operative planted by the US government in order to discredit the 9/11 truth movement.

    Exactly.

    Read More
  198. @AnonAussie
    So Wizard - I presume you go with the utterly implausible official theory?
    Here it is as a reminder: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yuC_4mGTs98

    Thanks for reminding me of that amusing YouTube skit.

    I have no dogs in any of the related US fights. If 9/11 really was the hypothetical Pearl Harbour (but USIsraeli manufactured on a truther view) which seems to be a genuine part of the 1997-8 PNAC doc then I am pleased that John Howard – who was in DC in walking distance from the Pentagon – only got us enough involved in Iraq to lose one soldier (who actually shot himself). I was never for the Iraq invasion but what Australia should have done is arguable.

    In retrospect I would hope that I might have formed a view against invading Afghanistan too. Just bombing the Taliban until they gave up or got rid of bin Laden would have made more sense.

    So, where am I at? I can just about put together a consistent account of what happened if one assumes that Cheney and co were ruthless traitors and ideologues. But I am far from persuadedd that the reality was other than that some Al Qaeda connected or inspired individual or group conspired to put together four teams equipped to hijack four planes one morning in the NE of the US and crash them into symbolically and/or practical symbols or institutions of US wealth and power with many expected deaths.

    Most, though not all, truthers are fruitcakes who at best just like raising their voices in the manner of the pub bore to keep up a reputation they hope they have for heterodoxy. Thus Rurik, who seems to be a successful builder/developer with some knowledge of metal and other structures exhibits the confident assertiveness and decisiveness which may well go with business success but doesn’t add up to a row of beans when, probably relying on what he read and saw 8 or 10 years ago, he writes of “all the laws of physics and structural engineering”. And he’s not one of the true nutters! I think CalDre is the only truther commenter that seems to be able to give serious doubt a fighting chance by making his hypotheses consistent and not depending on something totally balmy like CGI in lieu of actual aircraft.

    Read More
  199. @AnonAussie
    What you describe happening at the Chemistry journal sounds like the type of consequence of publishing the Harrit et al paper, that a Deep State may apply behind the scenes. A warning to any other academic journals.

    Yes I know, another conspiracy theory.
    But conspiracy is what the US Congressional investigation concluded killed JFK. Somehow (pressure behind scenes?) the DOJ did not follow through as requested.

    You should have done some research on those Bentham brand predatory open scientific journals before firing your reflex defensive waffle.

    Read More
    • Replies: @War for Blair Mountain
    Open Access Journals are the problem...greedy...dishonest...predatory. The usual suspects:Bentham....Hindawi...Nova Science.

    Go google this:Nature...Investigating Journals:The dark side of publishing by Declan Butler.


    The Jones-Harrit-Pace nanothermite paper would have been rejected by every major peer reviewed spectroscopy journal.
  200. @NoseytheDuke
    Your post proves only that you are a liar, either about being an engineer or about your impossible 'reasoning' on the cause of the collapses of the twin towers.

    What qualifications do you have to be taken seriously as an expert wrt Quartermaster’s qualifications or his theory or “reasoning”? You sound very confident.

    Read More
  201. @War for Blair Mountain
    Stonehands

    I consider the NIST...by many order of magnitude...a much more reliable source than the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth-David Ray Griffith-Purchase College Film Students(Dylan Avery)-the scientific sewage know as the Truther thermite study.


    I consider the lead Structural Engineer who head the design and construction of the TT a much more reliable source on engineering than the aforementioned. By the way, the lead Structural Engineer for the TT ..along with the wives of the brave men who died at Shanksville PA..have been accused by 9/11 Truthers as being part of the Bush-Cheney 9/11 Conspirator Team.

    But more importantly, I have followed the scientific debate with 9/11 Truthers for 15 f....g years...gave 'em a fair hearing...and have come to the conclusion that they are psychopathic treasonous liars...they have nasty-malignant-psychopathic intent and motive....

    I don’t need to know “how” the buildings came down- to know the official version is a pack of lies.

    The end result is the never-ending war on terror.

    Why has the “Truth” been turned into a malignant word?

    P.S.

    Don’t you think the alphabet agencies anonymously plant whacky theories, to discredit
    those who seek to oppose warmongering?

    Read More
  202. @NoseytheDuke
    Shortly after 9/11 the Taliban offered to surrender OBL on condition that evidence was provided as to his involvement. None was provided and he was not handed over to the US.

    My recollection of what I have read is that Mullah Omar loyally supported his Islamist guest Osama bin Laden on the basis that he was assured 9/11 wasnt the work of Al Qaeda (or maybe bin Laden) but that he came to be pretty pissed off with ObL lying about it which no doubt was one reason why ObL moved to Pakistan.

    It is too glib to suggest that all that was required was “evidence”. Suppose you are a priest and your brother priest swears to you that he is not guilty of some crime. Do you give him up to the often corrupt police because they produce some circumstantial evidence which, if not fabricated, could mean that your friend was guilty? Obviously no one had a smoking gun and recordings which couldn’t be denied or explained away.

    Read More
    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
    Al Qaeda was/is a CIA creation. It is certainly not glib to suggest that the Taliban offered to turn over OBL to the US if evidence of his involvement could be provided, that is simply the case. None was provided so he was not handed over.

    Glib is a better description of your own obfuscation and dissembling here on a wide variety of matters. Lucky for you that unz.com has contributors like Quartermaster, Boris, iffen etc. Without them you'd be a contender for the biggest shit-stain on the soiled underpants of The Unz Review.

    Also, Rurik has contributed some terrific comments over time on a variety of articles, your own comments don't even come close.
  203. @jb
    Anybody can say anything.

    I could declare that the "official story" of the moon landing was "patently false," and demand that you prove -- to my satisfaction! -- that I was wrong. You would of course fail, and I would take your failure as proof that I was right. If I could gather a fringe of crackpots around me, we could start quoting each other, and that would be further proof. We could declare ourselves to be a vast legion of experts, and assert that we had already disproved the official story beyond any reasonable doubt, and that all who disagreed were either delusional or part of the conspiracy. We could do all of those things.

    What we would not be able to do is win any real acceptance for our lunacy! Even the author of this article is forced to acknowledge that your movement has "mostly failed" in that regard. There is a reason for that. You can pretend otherwise, but the reason you remain on the fringe, and will continue to remain on the fringe, is that with very few exceptions, every serious person with any knowledge or expertise in the matter considers you all to be a pack of fools.

    What you can possibly do, unfortunately, is discredit other serious people who are associated with this site. And this, quite reasonably, makes me sad.

    You can also be sad about the accelerated decline of the ZUSA assisted by dupes such as yourself who seem incapable of digesting the fact that 9/11 was an inside job, brought about to involve the American people in ruinous wars for the benefit of a foreign power that not only spies on ZUSA more than any other nation but also extorts more taxpayer money than any other nation.

    One day it is possible that the penny will drop for you but most likely much too late. You’ll have done your bit though so sadness is the least of your just dessert.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jb
    Hmmm..., I'm wondering now. Do you in fact accept the "official story" about the moon landing?

    Just curious.
  204. @jb
    I wonder if Ron understands that publishing crap like this on his site undermines the reputation and credibility of his other bloggers. If someone wants to discredit Steve Sailer or Razib Khan, all they have to do is point out that they publish on a site that also promotes crackpot 9/11 truthers. I admire Sailer and Khan, and I think they are doing important work, so I find this very depressing.

    Someone who takes the ludicrous “Razib” seriously is not someone whose opinion interests me.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    Meant to ask you re: RK. What drives your opinion? My own of him, dropped precipitously after he -quite gratuitously - started disparaging me [in his own blog] as I was engaged in an exchange with "Jayman" over his nonsensical insistence that certain moderate statistical results constituted "laws of genetic heritability" or something equally preposterous.
  205. @Chaban
    Oh, so "Muh... hasbara" is your coherent, well-argumented reasoning?

    Hey, do you think Lavrov sent some of that leftover pizza and vodka to the Syrian army Russia stabbed in the back?

    Might have helped ease the betrayal.

    You’re a ridiculous circus geek going through his patter, louder and louder the fewer people are listening to him. Shut up, get lost, never come back.