The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewThe Saker Archive
The 9/11 Truth Movement 15 Years Later
Where Do We Stand?
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
shutterstock_310745324

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
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.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

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:

 
Hide 404 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. guest says:

    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?

  2. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

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

  3. Le biel says:
    @guest

    WTC 7 may have been the primary target.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  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/

  5. Boris says:

    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.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  6. Miro23 says:

    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.

    • Replies: @Sam Shama
  7. Alfa158 says:
    @guest

    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.

    • Replies: @anonymouse
    , @JG
  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.

  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.

  10. […] Für alle, die sich die Mühe antun wollen, es auf Englisch lesen wollen der Text findet sich hier. […]

  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.

  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.

    • Replies: @Seamus Padraig
    , @IMNAHA
  13. Is The Saker an agent for Clinton, trying to make her opponents sound crazy?

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  14. Tom Welsh says:

    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.

    • Replies: @Erebus
  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.

  16. Greg Bacon says: • Website

    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

  17. Rehmat says:

    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/

  18. @Alfa158

    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.

    • Replies: @Jacques Sheete
    , @Tom Welsh
  19. Erebus says:

    Send in the Trolls… there ought to be Trolls…

  20. @guest

    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?

  21. @anonymouse

    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.

    • Replies: @anonymouse
    , @Tom Welsh
  22. restless94110 [AKA "Stephen Douglas"] says:

    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.

  23. @Le biel

    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,

  24. @Boris

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

  25. @This Is Our Home

    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.

  26. @Planet Albany

    As good an explanation for his juvenile vapourings as any.

    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
  27. 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.

  28. bluedog says:
    @This Is Our Home

    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.!!!

  29. 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.

  30. @Jacques Sheete

    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.

    • Replies: @Jacques Sheete
  31. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Groovy Battle for Blair Mountain"] says:

    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…

    • Replies: @Rehmat
  32. Erebus says:
    @Tom Welsh

    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.

  33. vetran says:

    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!

  34. @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.

    • Replies: @Robert Magill
  35. utu says:

    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?

  36. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Groovy Battle for Blair Mountain"] says:
    @Anonymous

    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…

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  37. 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

    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
  38. Tom Welsh says:
    @anonymouse

    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.

  39. Tom Welsh says:
    @Jacques Sheete

    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.

    • Replies: @Anonymouse
  40. Tom Welsh says:
    @Erebus

    ‘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/

  41. The truthers have accomplished nothing. The perpetrators are still at large and still in charge.

    • Replies: @Tom Welsh
  42. Tom Welsh says:
    @Erebus

    “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?”

    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
    , @Rurik
  43. Tom Welsh says:
    @WorkingClass

    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.

  44. biz says:

    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.

    • Replies: @5371
  45. @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.

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

    • Replies: @Seamus Padraig
  46. @Seamus Padraig

    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.

  47. @Erebus

    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.

    • Replies: @Stonehands
    , @Incitatus
    , @Erebus
  48. Boris says:

    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.

    • Agree: Wizard of Oz
    • Replies: @Stephen R. Diamond
  49. @Anonymous

    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.

  50. Wally says: • Website
    @This Is Our Home

    The hasbarists have arrived.

    You are exactly what Saker is talking about.

    Insert other foot.

  51. @Tom Welsh

    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.

  52. lol, the Saker is a 9/11 truther? Even madder than I had thought.

  53. @Tom Welsh

    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.

    • Replies: @Tom Welsh
  54. 5371 says:
    @biz

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

    • Replies: @biz
  55. Tom Welsh says:
    @WorkingClass

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

    • Replies: @WorkingClass
  56. Incitatus says:
    @Tom Welsh

    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.

  57. “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.

  58. @Robert Magill

    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.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  59. @Tom Welsh

    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?”

    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.”

  60. 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.

    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
  61. @Tom Welsh

    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

  62. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @War for Blair Mountain

    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.”

    • Replies: @Boris
  63. edNels [AKA "geoshmoe"] says:
    @Erebus

    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…

  64. @guest

    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.

    • Replies: @James Kabala
    , @guest
  65. Boris says:
    @Anonymous

    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.

  66. @Intelligent Dasein

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

  67. Sam Shama says:
    @Miro23

    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?

    • Replies: @JVC
    , @Miro23
  68. utu says:

    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.

  69. nsa says:

    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……..

  70. DavidB says:

    Still the best response to conspiracy theories in general:

  71. “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.

  72. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Groovy Battle for Blair Mountain"] says:
    @Boris

    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.

    • Replies: @Stonehands
    , @Anonymous
  73. @folktruther

    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.

    • Replies: @folktruther
  74. Amasius says:
    @Boris

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

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

    • Replies: @Boris
  75. @Wizard of Oz

    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-…;

  76. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Groovy Battle for Blair Mountain"] says:
    @DavidB

    Ha…Ha…

  77. Boris says:
    @Amasius

    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.

  78. @War for Blair Mountain

    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?

  79. 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.

    • Replies: @Boris
  80. @James Kabala

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

  81. Boris says:
    @Astuteobservor II

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

  82. vinteuil says:
    @DavidB

    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.

  83. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Groovy Battle for Blair Mountain"] says:
    @Stonehands

    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….

    • Replies: @Stonehands
  84. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Groovy Battle for Blair Mountain"] says:
    @folktruther

    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.

  85. biz says:
    @5371

    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.

    • Replies: @5371
  86. Ron Unz says:

    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?

  87. JVC says:
    @Sam Shama

    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.

    • Replies: @Sam Shama
  88. Incitatus says:
    @Intelligent Dasein

    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.

  89. Athos says:

    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.”

  90. @Ron Unz

    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…

    • Replies: @Miro23
    , @Rurik
  91. @anonymouse

    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.

  92. @Ron Unz

    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

  93. @Seamus Padraig

    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.

  94. @Boris

    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.

    • Replies: @Boris
  95. Incitatus says:
    @Boris

    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.”

  96. Rehmat says:
    @War for Blair Mountain

    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/

    • Replies: @henry_bowman
  97. 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

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  98. Sam Shama says:
    @Ron Unz

    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

    • Replies: @vetran
  99. Thirdeye says:
    @guest

    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.

    • Replies: @anonymous
    , @Wizard of Oz
  100. @Wizard of Oz

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

  101. anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Thirdeye

    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.

  102. @Robert Magill

    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.

    • Replies: @Robert Magill
  103. biz says:
    @Ron Unz

    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

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  104. Boris says:
    @Astuteobservor II

    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.

    • Replies: @Astuteobservor II
  105. @Ron Unz

    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.

  106. @Thirdeye

    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.

  107. @Incitatus

    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.

    • Agree: Jacques Sheete
  108. DaveE says:

    Listen SFB, the Jews, the zionists, the Mossad, whatever, did it.

    Get over it, before we get over you.

  109. biz says:

    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.

  110. Ron Unz says:
    @biz

    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…

    • Replies: @utu
    , @James Kabala
    , @biz
  111. Boris says:
    @Ron Unz

    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.

  112. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Boris

    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

    • Replies: @Boris
    , @Wizard of Oz
  113. 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.

  114. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @War for Blair Mountain

    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.

  115. 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.

  116. @Boris

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

    • Replies: @Boris
  117. Mikel says:

    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.

  118. 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.

    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.

  119. Boris says:
    @Anonymous

    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.

  120. Boris says:
    @Astuteobservor II

    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.

    • Replies: @Astuteobservor II
  121. Good work, Saker. All power to you!

  122. guest says:
    @folktruther

    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?

  123. utu says:
    @Ron Unz

    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).

  124. @Boris

    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.

    • Replies: @Boris
    , @Boris
    , @ogunsiron
  125. HardFacts says:
    @This Is Our Home

    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.”

    • Replies: @Quartermaster
  126. Erebus says:
    @Incitatus

    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.

    • Replies: @Boris
  127. Erebus says:
    @Intelligent Dasein

    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?

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  128. 5371 says:
    @biz

    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.

  129. […] Written by TheSaker; Originally appeared at TheUnzReview […]

  130. […] Written by TheSaker; Originally appeared at TheUnzReview […]

  131. @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.

    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.

  132. @Incitatus

    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?

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    , @Boris
  133. @NoseytheDuke

    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/

  134. Miro23 says:
    @Sam Shama

    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.

    • Replies: @Sam Shama
  135. @Jacques Sheete

    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….

  136. Boris says:
    @Astuteobservor II

    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.

    • Replies: @Astuteobservor II
  137. @Jonathan Revusky

    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?

  138. @Ron Unz

    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!

  139. Boris says:
    @Erebus

    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.

  140. @Anonymous

    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.

  141. @Erebus

    On CGI would you care to address the matters raised in #140.

    • Replies: @Erebus
  142. Miro23 says:
    @Erebus

    “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.

  143. biz says:
    @Ron Unz

    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

  144. @HardFacts

    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.

  145. Boris says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

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

    lol, Jonny. You are far, far gone.

  146. Miro23 says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    “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.

  147. @Miro23

    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

  148. Boris says:
    @Astuteobservor II

    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.

    • Agree: ogunsiron
    • Replies: @Astuteobservor II
  149. @Boris

    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.

    • Replies: @Boris
  150. @Miro23

    probably when they retired and safe from losing their jobs and don’t care about reps as much.

  151. @Boris

    who cares about saker or others, you are now talking to me. our conversation started when you replied to me.

    • Replies: @Boris
  152. Boris says:
    @Astuteobservor II

    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.

    • Replies: @Astuteobservor II
  153. Boris says:
    @Astuteobservor II

    You aren’t talking about anything. You are whining. Have some self respect.

  154. Sam Shama says:
    @Miro23

    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.

    • Replies: @Miro23
  155. 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.

    • Replies: @annamaria
    , @NoseytheDuke
  156. Rurik says:
    @Erebus

    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!

  157. Rurik says:
    @Tom Welsh

    “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!!!

  158. Rurik says:
    @Tom Welsh

    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

  159. @Boris

    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?

    • Replies: @Boris
  160. Rurik says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    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

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  161. @Quartermaster

    “I am, by the way, a Professional Engineer with a degree in Civil Engineering.”

    Me too.

  162. @Quartermaster

    I am, by the way, a Professional Engineer with a degree in Civil Engineering.

    Oh really, where is your degree from?

    • Replies: @anonymous
  163. Rurik says:

    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.

  164. Boris says:
    @Astuteobservor II

    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.

    • Replies: @edNels
    , @Astuteobservor II
  165. TheJester says:

    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.

    • Replies: @Jacques Sheete
  166. edNels [AKA "geoshmoe"] says:
    @Boris

    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….

    • Replies: @Boris
  167. anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    Hasbara University

  168. @Boris

    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 :)))

    • Replies: @Boris
  169. @Rurik

    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.

  170. @Rurik

    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.

  171. Boris says:
    @Astuteobservor II

    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.

    • Replies: @Astuteobservor II
  172. Boris says:
    @edNels

    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…

    • Replies: @vetran
  173. @Boris

    I love it :) I should stop, but it is so hard not to pick on retards like you :)

    :))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) pounding away :) hahahahah

    • Agree: Boris
  174. Chaban says:

    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…

    • Replies: @annamaria
  175. ogunsiron says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    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.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  176. annamaria says:
    @Chaban

    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.”

    • Replies: @Chaban
  177. ogunsiron says:
    @Astuteobservor II

    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.

    • Replies: @Astuteobservor II
  178. annamaria says:
    @Jane Claire

    “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:”

    (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.

  179. @ogunsiron

    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.

    like this video. the points/questions can all stand on their own ground. together they make a pretty good case.

    • Replies: @Boris
  180. Chaban says:
    @annamaria

    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.

    • Replies: @annamaria
  181. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Groovy Battle for Blair Mountian"] says:

    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!!!

    • Replies: @AnonAussie
  182. jb says:

    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.

    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
    , @5371
  183. annamaria says:
    @Chaban

    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?

    • Agree: Jacques Sheete
    • Replies: @Chaban
  184. @ogunsiron

    No doubt. Which would make an account of attempts at editing and relevant correspondence all the more interesting.

  185. IMNAHA says:
    @Robert Magill

    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…

    • Replies: @Robert Magill
  186. Chaban says:
    @annamaria

    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.

    • Replies: @5371
    , @TheJester
  187. @IMNAHA

    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/

    • Replies: @Anonymous Smith
  188. @TheJester

    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???

  189. @Quartermaster

    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.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  190. @Jane Claire

    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.

  191. @Rurik

    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.

  192. @jb

    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.

    • Replies: @jb
  193. AnonAussie says: • Website
    @Wizard of Oz

    So Wizard – I presume you go with the utterly implausible official theory?
    Here it is as a reminder:

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  194. AnonAussie says: • Website
    @War for Blair Mountain

    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.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  195. @Robert Magill

    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.

    • Replies: @L.K
  196. @Boris

    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.

  197. joe webb says:

    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.

  198. Boris says:
    @Astuteobservor II

    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?

  199. jb says:
    @NoseytheDuke

    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.

    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
  200. L.K says:
    @Anonymous Smith

    Anonymous Smith:

    Judy Wood is a disinformation operative planted by the US government in order to discredit the 9/11 truth movement.

    Exactly.

  201. @AnonAussie

    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.

  202. @AnonAussie

    You should have done some research on those Bentham brand predatory open scientific journals before firing your reflex defensive waffle.

  203. @NoseytheDuke

    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.

  204. @War for Blair Mountain

    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?

  205. @NoseytheDuke

    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.

    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
  206. @jb

    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.

    • Replies: @jb
  207. 5371 says:
    @jb

    Someone who takes the ludicrous “Razib” seriously is not someone whose opinion interests me.

    • Replies: @Sam Shama
  208. 5371 says:
    @Chaban

    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.

    • Replies: @Chaban
  209. @Wizard of Oz

    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.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  210. Erebus says:

    I don’t normally have truck with arguments from authority, but there seems to be more than a few here who will take only that sort of argument. So here are two from as authoritative authorities as one is likely to find sticking their necks out on 2 aspects of 9/11.

    Leroy Hulsey, Chair of the University of Alaska, Fairbanks’ (UAF) Civil and Environmental Engineering Department, has been looking at the collapse of WTC7 employing extensive use of FEA. He presented his findings at the Justice in Focus 9/11 Symposium in New York on Sep 10, 2016:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7IVCSpalbA&feature=youtu.be

    And a sworn affidavit from John Lear submitted to the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK in the matter of The United States of America vs SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORP., et al
    The most highly certificated FAA airman, also holding 17 aviation world records, states in his first claim as follows:

    No Boeing 767 airliners hit the Twin Towers as fraudulently alleged by the government, media, NIST and its contractors.
    Such crashes did not occur because they are physically impossible as depicted…

    http://www.drjudywood.com/pdf/080128_94AffidavitLear.pdf

    If these two highly accomplished, public figures are also tossed aside as lunatic conspiracy theorists by our true-believers, the conversation might as well end.

  211. Erebus says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    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?

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  212. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Groovy Battle for Blair Mountain"] says:
    @Erebus

    Erbeus

    I…We…are not making the case against 9/11 Truther “Science” solely based upon appeal to Scientific Authority. A large part of our disgust with 9/11 Truther “Science” is based upon carefull reading of both the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Science and Truth…. and carefull reading of what the mainstream Architects,Engineers, Academic Engineers-Physicists have written about the engineering and physics of the collapse of TT. And we have come to the conclusion that 9/11 Truther “Science” is raw untreated sewage.

    There has been 15 years of painstaking point-by-point rebuttals of 9/11 Truther “Science” that can be found on You Tube and the internet…all over the place.

    My own view is that the 9/11 Truthers are a weird sociopathic Gnostic Cult+greedy bastards such as Alex Jones and Dylan Avery who have milked the crazy 9/11 Truther rank and file of $$$$$$$$$$. Both of them have acquired multimillion $$$$ homes.

    Without a doubt, mainstream-Big Science can get it wrong, and bad ideas can become institutionally entrenched for a long time….Superstring theory comes to mind, as does HIV causes AIDS Academic Science. Moreover, the are very serious critics-serious noncranks within the Astrophysics-Astronomy Community regarding Dark Matter.

    Side note:The recent claim of made in Scientific America that Chomsky’s innate hypothesis regarding meta-syntactical rules…this specific claim of Chomsky’s has in fact not been overthrown by new scientific evidence. This Scientific American article had all the hallmarks of hatchet-job “science”….ok, don’t sidetrack this thread with a debate about the evidential basis of the innate hypothesis…this is Anatoly Carlin comment realm.

    What I believe in is hardcore intellectual honesty.

  213. @Erebus

    I am with thiose who thinks your scenario most conclusively fails because there were two towers to be struck and there is not the slightest chance that the planners would have relied on creating a mass illusion twice over.

    • Replies: @Erebus
  214. @NoseytheDuke

    I think I have already posted reference on UR to the excellent PBS Frontline program “The Secret History of ISIS” shown first I think in mid May this year.

    The first Google search entry reads “The inside story of the creation of ISIS and how the U.S. missed the many warning signs”.

    To say the least it makes it seem implausible that the CIA could have had much knowledge of Al Qaeda and its offshoots and network so I invite you to discharge the evidentiary burden of showing how, when, why and where the CIA did this nefarious work. I presume you are referring to something less remote in time and causation than the assistance given to the mujahadeen to molest the Russians in Afghanistan.

  215. Erebus says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    I am with thiose who thinks your scenario most conclusively fails because there were two towers to be struck and there is not the slightest chance that the planners would have relied on creating a mass illusion twice over.

    And you’ve been telling us you’re a lawyer (even if only in AU). LOL!

    Surely, even in the smallest law school in Abofuck, Queensland they would have demonstrated to the students various techniques used to plant false memories in witnesses, the ways in which these can be reinforced, and how to counteract them.

    Should you have actually gone to law school, and actually stayed long enough to have learned any of those techniques, you and “thiose who thinks” would know that the jet noise and explosion of the first instance, where virtually zero witnesses would have seen a plane/missile, serves to setup and reinforce the internalization of the experiences from the second instance.

    You probably knew that, but are just dishonest enough to try to prevaricate about the bush. Whereof you cannot speak intelligently, thereof you should remain silent. Get lost.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  216. Boris says:
    @Erebus

    http://www.drjudywood.com/pdf/080128_94AffidavitLear.pdf

    This person is a fool. He thinks piloting the aircraft would have been too difficult because blood would have been all over the controls. Which is a good theory until you realize that even Arab hijackers are familiar with the technological advancement that we call “towels.”

    • Replies: @Erebus
  217. Sam Shama says:
    @5371

    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.

    • Replies: @5371
  218. @Erebus

    Where have I said I am a lawyer? Another case of a truther confusing assumption with fact or memory?

    You are quite anachronistic in your reference to false memories and I doubt that many law schools anywhere teach or have taught controversial branches of psychology.

    Your theory reminds me of some of the more fanciful stories connected with the mass delusion said to be responsible for the apparition of Our Lady of Fatima. But you don’t seem to have dealt with the problem that you are not only supposing such mind control can be achieved in no time flat like a conjurer’s illusions and affect hundreds of people ifentically that are bound to vary enormously in their suggestibility, but that this unprecedented speed and efficiency of deception and illusion is something that the plotters could be confident of achieving. I don’t suppose you would like to cite the professional literature which would have zhown the plotters that it could be done???

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
    , @Erebus
  219. Rurik says:
    @Erebus

    Hey Erebus,

    I’ve been checking out some of your info. I wouldn’t have except that I’m convinced you’re sincere about the lack of planes, and I’m equally sincere in that I’m convinced that we both want to know what really happened.

    I don’t know what to make of John Lear. I read the affidavit and have issues with it. I’ve also just watched a video where he discusses all of this.

    and says a plane could not be remote controlled this accurately. Has he even seen the video of all those smart bombs? I believe that today it’s common knowledge that a jet can be remote controlled to take off and land, which is certainly more taxing than simply crashing into a building.

    http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=161572.0

    and if the jets already had altitude, then why couldn’t they get the speed he’s talking about simply by using their downward trajectory to gain speed?

    also he talks about the ‘Wile E Coyote’ holes in the buildings where the planes hit as if they don’t exist! I mean come on, they were there for along time. People were taking pictures of them and videos, how can he imply that the holes were a hoax when we all know they were real?!

    is he trying to say these holes are an illusion?!

    And he talks about the tail section and parts of the plane as if it would have hit the building and simply fallen to the ground, as if there were no inertia to drag these parts into the holes created by the fuselage and engines.

    On the issue of the Pentagon, we are certainly in agreement, no passenger jet hit the Pentagon. But something did! And something created those “Wile E Coyote” holes that Mr. Lear tries to mock as if they didn’t exist. They did exist, and I wonder if Mr. Lear isn’t perhaps still working for the CIA.

    one of the main things they’re doing to put the kibosh on the truth movement is try to make the whole thing all sound ridiculous. And I suspect that they know there is a serious problem with the Pentagon narrative, and Shanksville, where they faked the plane crash site. And so they’re trying to piggyback this “no plane hit the towers” meme on the other anomalies and use that to dissuade other potential skeptics from taking all of this seriously.

  220. Erebus says:
    @Boris

    For clarity, are you saying Judy Wood is a fool (with whom I have considerable disagreement) or John Lear, who, at the time of his retirement, was arguably the most highly qualified commercial pilot in the USA? Not to mention that, being son of the founder/inventor of Learjet, he would have been pissing, breathing, eating, dreaming and shitting airplanes since his childhood.

    If John Lear, you’re being disingenuous. He talks about an awful lot more than blood on the controls. Included in that is the inescapable fact that aerodynamic drag at 800ft is several orders of magnitude higher than at 35,000 ft. Aerodynamic drag alone would have prevented the 7×7 achieving the 590mph into WTC1. The engines just ain’t got the horses to do that, even if the compressor fans could handle the incoming air without mass cavitation.

    Anecdotally, a few months after 9/11, Air Canada’s head training/certification pilot told of having his test subjects try and hit the towers in their flight simulators as a bit of sport during their annual testing/training. Not one ever hit the towers, and he said that he took 3-4 tries before he nailed one. Basically, he said at that speed the best one can do is “try to hit the right city”. His interview was on CBC (iirc), but I have no idea whether it’s available anywhere. Before you get all excited, I know this proves little.

  221. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Erebus

    So this video, and the woman in that gaping hole are parts of the Wily E. Coyote illusions, eh?

    While pretending to be so damn intelligent, also ponder on your shamelessness.

    • Replies: @Erebus
  222. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Groovy Battle for Blair Mountain"] says:
    @Erebus

    More untreated raw sewage from the disturbed truther Erebius….John Lear Jr. is either a CIA disinformation specialist or a psychotic delusional…take your pick.

  223. @Rurik

    is he trying to say these holes are an illusion?!

    Well, that the holes were there does not absolutely prove that they were caused by the impact of the planes in question, does it?

    I mean, one key fact that Erebus brings up that I’ve seen elsewhere is simply that a Boeing 767 simply cannot fly that fast at near sea level. It goes that fast at 30,000 feet where the air pressure is several times lower.

    The whole airliner hijacking story is a total non-starter for sure. It’s not just that these guys were allegedly flying the plane for the first time, and take the aircraft to a velocity that is beyond it’s design limitations. BUT they do that after having violently taken over the cockpit and murdered the pilots (with boxcutters of all things).

    I mean, you just try to visualize this and it’s just crazy. Imagine that you just took over the plane, having killed pilots, blood everywhere. Imagine what your adrenaline level would be like, what kind of altered mental state somebody would be in.

    So, in that frame of mind, you go take control of the plane, flying it for the first (and last time) in your life, and calmly pilot into the target. I mean, just look at the cockpit of one of these Boeings. https://www.google.es/search?q=boeing+767+cockpit&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiDx56j14zPAhVDxxQKHTfYB7wQ_AUICCgB&biw=1280&bih=604

    I mean, who could plan an operation counting on these guys to carry this out? The whole story is so self-evidently fantastical that…

    I reason that if planes did hit the towers, it was not the Boeings they claim. It would have to be military drones or something. Remote control. No pilot, no passengers either. But I am frankly tending towards the pure video fakery theory, even though it’s hard initially to get one’s head around it. And again, I’m not saying I’m absolutely certain either…

    Have you ever looked at the Simon Shack material, like September Clues?

    • Replies: @utu
  224. L.K says:

    Regarding the matter of whether or not bin Laden and ‘al-Qaeda’ were even capable of orchestrating the 9-11 Attacks, author and professor David Ray Griffin, wrote:

    For prosecutors to prove that defendants committed a crime, they must show that they had the ability (as well as the motive and opportunity) to do so.
    But several political and military leaders from other countries have stated that bin Laden and al-Qaeda simply could not have carried out the attacks.
    General Leonid Ivashov, who in 2001 was the chief of staff for the Russian armed forces, wrote:

    “Only secret services and their current chiefs—or those retired but still having influence inside the state organizations—have the ability to plan, organize and conduct an operation of such magnitude…Osama bin Laden and “Al Qaeda” cannot be the organizers nor the performers of the September 11 attacks. They do not have the necessary organization, resources or leaders.”

    Similar statements have been made by Andreas von Bülow, the former state secretary of West Germany’s ministry of defense, by General Mirza Aslam Beg, former chief of staff of Pakistan’s army, and even General Musharraf, the president of Pakistan until recently.[109]

    This same point was also made by veteran CIA agent Milt Bearden. Speaking disparagingly of “the myth of Osama bin Laden” on CBS News the day after 9/11, Bearden said: “I was there [in Afghanistan] at the same time bin Laden was there. He was not the great warrior.” With regard to the widespread view that bin Laden was behind the attacks, he said: “This was a tremendously sophisticated operation against the United States—more sophisticated than anybody would have ascribed to Osama bin Laden.” Pointing out that a group capable of such a sophisticated attack would have had a way to cover their tracks, he added: “This group who was responsible for that, if they didn’t have an Osama bin Laden out there, they’d invent one, because he’s a terrific diversion.”[110]

  225. Erebus says:
    @Anonymous

    Where in that affidavit does he talk about holes in the buildings?

  226. Ron Unz says: • Website
    @Rurik

    I’ve been checking out some of your info. I wouldn’t have except that I’m convinced you’re sincere about the lack of planes, and I’m equally sincere in that I’m convinced that we both want to know what really happened.

    Well, I’d emphasize I’m no 9/11 expert and I also haven’t read through this enormously long comment-thread. But apparently there are a number of people who argue that planes never actually hit the WTC towers and what we’ve seen is some sort of special-effects film or something. So here’s a question for those people…

    The WTC complex is located in one of the densest parts of Manhattan, and I’d guess that around that time of the morning there were many thousands, perhaps even tens of thousands of people in the general vicinity, surely many of them with an unobscructed sight of the buildings. Undoubtedly a certain fraction of these individuals would have happened to be glancing in the direction of the first tower when the plane allegedly hit or the tower exploded or whatever happened. And with one tower burning, I’d assume a very large fraction of everyone in the vicinity had their eyes in the general direction of the second tower when whatever happened, happened.

    Thus, I’d guess there were at least hundreds of physical eye-witnesses to the first hit (or whatever) and probably many thousands to the second one.

    Now if planes had *not* hit the towers, surely enormous numbers of those eye-witnesses would have come forward over the last 15 years, if only anonymously on websites, to say that they were there and that the official story reported was fictional, and these huge number of allegations would probably constitute the primary evidence quoted by the “no-plane” believers. Yet I’ve never heard of a single example of that being cited.

    I don’t know anything about aircraft flying speeds or those other arguments, but based on the apparent total lack of contrary eye-witnesses, I’m *exceptionally* skeptical of the no-plane hypothesis.

    “The Dog That Didn’t Bark”…

  227. @Wizard of Oz

    Where have I said I am a lawyer?

    Huh? I could have sworn you said you were a lawyer. You’re not? Well, okay. Maybe Erebus got that from me. Or he got that impression independently… In either case, it’s just an honest mistake.

    Anyway, regardless of whether you are an actual lawyer or not, I’ve had some pretty surreal exchanges with you. Recently, I asked you what the best evidence available for the official story was. And your answer was basically that the proof of the official story was that it was the official story.

    What you do in general is you make these a priori sorts of arguments and then willfully ignore any actual facts that contradict them. You’re like the proverbial pointy headed intellectuals who sit around somewhere enclosed, say, and debate whether it’s raining outside and never bother to look outside. Thus, in my first article in the Unz Review, I pointed to an ISIS beheading video that was fake, laughably fake. All you have to do is go look at it. I provided the link.

    You made a series of a priori arguments that the video was real and admitted openly that you had not watched it. I thought that was pretty incredible. You said: “What’s wrong with using Ockham’s razor to…. ” and I replied: “What’s wrong with actually looking at the video, i.e. the primary evidence” That was here:

    http://www.unz.com/article/battling-the-matrix-and-freeing-oneself-from-the-roger-rabbit-mental-world/#comment-1334101

    But all of your participation is really like this.

    When this article refers to people who insist that an orange is an apple, the first person who comes to mind is YOU.

  228. Rurik says:

    Well, that the holes were there does not absolutely prove that they were caused by the impact of the planes in question, does it?

    JR, come now..

    what else would have caused them?

    I mean, one key fact that Erebus brings up that I’ve seen elsewhere is simply that a Boeing 767 simply cannot fly that fast at near sea level. It goes that fast at 30,000 feet where the air pressure is several times lower.

    that still doesn’t negate the possibility that I’ve already mentioned that the planes were much higher than sea level and were in the process of descent when they garnered the speed to level off and hit the target. Why must we assume they were flying low the whole time?

    The whole airliner hijacking story is a total non-starter for sure. It’s not just that these guys were allegedly flying the plane for the first time, and take the aircraft to a velocity that is beyond it’s design limitations. BUT they do that after having violently taken over the cockpit and murdered the pilots (with boxcutters of all things).

    I’ve never believed for two seconds that it was the Arab “terrorists” who were flying the planes. I’ve always assumed those jets were being flown by remote control.

    I reason that if planes did hit the towers, it was not the Boeings they claim. It would have to be military drones or something. Remote control. No pilot, no passengers either.

    this has been my default theory from day one. I don’t know if they really ever hijacked any passenger jets or not. I suspect so, but I don’t know for sure. What I suspect, and have never mentioned- because it sounds so horrible that most people (including myself) would be hard put to imagine that our rulers are that evil – is that passenger jets were loaded with passengers with very select crews, like Daniel Lewin for instance.

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

    the people like Lewin would have been in charge of handling the passengers as the planes veered wildly off course and landed somewhere at some government/military air base. Where they would have sent up the remote controlled jets that would then crash into the towers.

    The reason I don’t like to mention that theory is because people would then be forced to ask, ‘well than what happened to the passengers? And it’s because of the answer to that question, that I prefer we don’t ask it. At least not until we’re in a court of law with Dov Zakheim sitting in the defendant’s chair.

    Or, there might not have even been any passenger jets that took off. But I doubt that, since that would have necessitated a whole lot of rigging of records to accord with the narrative. Whereas if you just add those passengers to the thousands you’re already perfectly prepared to slaughter, it just makes the whole thing much smoother as you’re selling the attack as a terrorist attack.

    when I watch the videos of the jets crashing, (here’s one that shows both planes crashing)

    everything about those impacts looks to me exactly like it would if that were to happen for real. And there are several different angle of these videos, and they’d have to doctor every one, and then the holes! How else did they get there?!

    So no, I’m convinced of what I saw vis-a-vis the plane crash videos, and all of that.

    but that doesn’t mean that it was Hani Hanjour (or any of those absurd schlemiels) behind the controls.

    http://thephaser.com/2016/03/zionist-dov-zakheim-911-comptroller-remote-control-planes/

    check out the bottom of the page

    “No Plane / TV Fakery Theories Debunked as controlled opposition counter-intelligence”

    http://web.archive.org/web/20060318175024/http://www.defenselink.mil/bios/zakheim_bio.html

    • Replies: @Boris
    , @Jonathan Revusky
  229. Erebus says:
    @Rurik

    Please understand that I was only putting these up because the constant “Whaddya-kno-bowd-it” , and “all truthers are simply insane” arguments were getting on my nerves, and I have but one left. I haven’t spent too much time studying Lear, and read papers by Hulsey but I have no access to Youtube. Their credentials were beyond reproach, so I just pointed out that highly qualified people have come out with the same arguments as us simple folk.

    However, you’ve brought up a number of things I’ve seen elsewhere…

    a jet can be remote controlled to take off and land, which is certainly more taxing than simply crashing into a building.

    Not even close. A jet lands and takes off at half the speed that the planes apparently went into the buildings. The towers presented roughly the same width of target vs the typical runway width, but auto-landing is not just “programmed”. The plane’s software takes advantage of triangulated radar feedback from ground stations for determining its precise position in 3D space. Almost every flight takes advantage of this landing capability, but take-offs are another matter. Almost all take-offs are still done manually because the software is of no help when the plane is still on the runway in a 2D space. Yes, a plane may have been able to have been homed in using triangulated beacons, but then we’re no longer talking about commercial airliners, are we?
    By way of illustration, try taking an off ramp that you would have managed (paying attention, with white knuckles and that sickening “here-we-go” feeling) in a Winnebago at 60mph (100kmh) at 120mph (200kmh). Things get a lot more exciting at 120mph (200kmH), especially if you’ve never driven a Winnebago (or commercial airliner) before.
    A smart bomb (by which I assume you mean a missile) is c-o-m-p-l-e-t-e-l-y different than a 75/67. You’re talking about the difference between an F1 car and, well, a Winnebago.

    if the jets already had altitude, then why couldn’t they get the speed he’s talking about simply by using their downward trajectory to gain speed?

    Well, they could, as John says, but then they’d be unable to sustain it in level flight due to parasitic drag. There really is no point in arguing with him about the aeronautical stuff. He knows this shit since he woke up with it in his crib.

    also he talks about the ‘Wile E Coyote’ holes in the buildings where the planes hit as if they don’t exist!

    Well, he certainly doesn’t in his affidavit, so I don’t know what to make of what you’re saying. I have no reason to doubt the holes were there as portrayed in countless photos and videos.

    …he talks about the tail section and parts of the plane as if it would have hit the building and simply fallen to the ground

    Yeah, I believe him on that. I think no more than 60-70% of the plane (volume) would have gone into the building – 30-40% falling into the street below. Little of the outboard wings, and none of the aft-fuselage would have made it in, imho. We’ll never know, until somebody builds a mockup and flies a 767 into it. Probably cheaper than doing an FEA, and an order of magnitude quicker.

    But this is all minutiae. Of no real import to the socio-political impact and effects that the perpetrators intended, and largely succeeded in achieving.

    • Replies: @Rurik
  230. L.K says:

    So, clearly, OBL/Al-Qaeada, did not have the capabilities to do 9-11.
    But who, who had the motive and the means to carry out – and get alway with – such a murderous and complex operation?

    US Marine Corps veteran, Vietnam veteran, graduate of the US Army War College & a Director of Studies at the US Army War College for over 5 years, Dr. Alan Sabrosky, says that after studying the facts surrounding 9/11 he is 100% certain that ISRAEL DID IT.
    Listen to what he has to say, it is a short video:

    @1:14 more or less, Dr.Sabrosky says that if the American people find out about it, Zionism and Israel are finished.

    I think he is right… and that is why there was never a real investigation and no real investigation will ever be allowed to take place.

    If the official BS becomes too untenable, another scapegoat will be found instead, probably the Saudis.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  231. utu says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    Thank you for providing the link to Simon Shack. I did not know it. After viewing a first thought that came to my mind was that there might be no “real” footage, i.e., unaltered footage of collapsing towers, so all analyses based on the available footage are questionable. Which may mean that nothing is real. Which means that that there is no point of researching this event. Abandon all hope. Thank you Mr. Simon Shack. You did a good job.

  232. Chaban says:
    @5371

    Wow! You sound like a pretty grumpy, angry guy. What’s going on? Did not get any of Lavrov’s leftover pizza and vodka? Is that it?

    Or are you a pissed off, betrayed Novorossian or Syrian fighter? I know. Getting stabbed in the back literally — stings!

  233. L.K says:
    @Ron Unz

    Mr.Unz,

    I’m certain jets did hit the towers*… the question is; which jets exactly? As investigative journalist & author C.Bollyn wrote:

    “Durable parts from the two jets that struck the twin towers, such as landing gear and engines, supposedly landed on buildings and streets of Manhattan. On these engines and landing gear are many numbered time-tracked parts which could prove precisely which aircraft they had been put on and when they had been serviced, but the FBI has refused to present this evidence to make its case. Why wouldn’t the FBI present this evidence if it had it?
    The only possible explanation for the FBI’s failure to present this evidence is that the evidence does not match the planes they claim hit the buildings or “crashed” in Pennsylvania. If the planes that were involved in the attacks on the World Trade Center were, in fact, not United Airlines Flight 175 and American Airlines Flight 11, but remotely-controlled tankers painted to look like civilian aircraft, who could have produced such disguised planes and inserted them into the NORAD anti-terrorism exercise that was taking place in the airspace of the East Coast on the morning of 9/11?”

    He goes on to provide detailed info that the Israelis had the means to do it.

    * the jets’ impacts & fires would NOT have caused the towers to come down in the way they did though.

  234. Erebus says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    I doubt that many law schools anywhere teach or have taught controversial branches of psychology.

    Well, that’s a bit of your usual mis-direction.
    Of course, law schools do not “teach… controversial branches of psychology”, they teach the legal implications of false memory, induced or organic, where dependence on witnesses may be crucial. This includes techniques lawyers who deal with witnesses are to employ to determine whether the witness is truthful, and not just a believer in what they’re saying. This is still taught today in most law schools in N. America, afaik. It certainly is at Stanford.

    this unprecedented speed and efficiency of deception and illusion is something that the plotters could be confident of achieving

    Surely, as an old hand at the game, you would know that the problem of deception lies not in the beginning, but at the end. You can fool people instantly, before they even know it, but to keep them fooled is another matter altogether. That, in an nutshell, is why 9-11 was wall to wall 19 Arab- hijackers-blah-blah-blah 10 years ago, and is now a minority view, even in the USA. Elsewhere, of course, its been a minority view for far longer.

  235. Rurik says:
    @Ron Unz

    based on the apparent total lack of contrary eye-witnesses, I’m *exceptionally* skeptical of the no-plane hypothesis.

    yes, and if you include the gaping, smoking holes, (that look just like a passenger sized jet just struck), and all the videos of the second plane hitting and how they’d have to doctor all of those, not to mention all the inconvenient videos that might exist of just an explosion happening without the jet… and it seems to me that the ‘no plane’ theory is a distraction, perhaps in some cases deliberate.

    I suspect that Lear fellow who “used” to be CIA, still is

    or can anyone answer for me why these jets couldn’t have gotten their speed at a higher altitude and then just descended into the towers?

    And if so, how is it that a man like this Lear fellow wouldn’t be able to consider that? His own expertise is his most glaring mea culpa

    and he calls the smoking holes (that everyone can see!) ‘Wile E Coyote” holes, as if they don’t even exist. And then people who might be at the point of entertaining the possibility that there’s something amiss with the whole hyper-fantastic fraud, hear “truthers” say the plane crashes and the smoking holes were all illusions, and then it doesn’t pass the straight-face test. They walk away thinking what a bunch of kooks. And that’s the point..

    • Replies: @Stonehands
  236. Boris says:
    @Erebus

    If John Lear, you’re being disingenuous. He talks about an awful lot more than blood on the controls.

    But he talks about blood on the controls. He included it in his lawsuit. He thinks it’s important. That’s a sign that his judgment is wrong at a very basic level. He also says that cockpit alarms constantly blaring would have made it impossible to hit the towers. Silly stuff.

    As others have pointed out, he could be right about the engines not being able to produce enough power, but he doesn’t even mention gravity.

  237. Rurik says:
    @Erebus

    But this is all minutiae. Of no real import to the socio-political impact and effects that the perpetrators intended, and largely succeeded in achieving

    I’m going to start with this, and I agree

    and I have but one left.

    I have two, and one is frayed badly

    Their credentials were beyond reproach, so I just pointed out that highly qualified people have come out with the same arguments as us simple folk

    I don’t doubt their expertise, it’s their motives I consider suspect

    as for credentials and motives, I see LK just linked to something by Dr. Alan Sabrosky. There’s some hard sand in that man. There’s just no way he’s a psyops shill trolling for Deepstate shekels. He’s the real deal.

    A jet lands and takes off at half the speed that the planes apparently went into the buildings.

    the slower you’re going, the less control you have. At least that’s how it works with a hang glider, of which I’m quite familiar. Not that’s it’s apples to apples or course, but I bet the principles are the same.

    Yes, a plane may have been able to have been homed in using triangulated beacons, but then we’re no longer talking about commercial airliners, are we?

    I’ve never believed the jets that hit the towers were passenger jets filled with civilians and a commercial crew. Those were specially outfitted jets, rigged especially for the purposes of 911, IMHO.

    You’re talking about the difference between an F1 car and, well, a Winnebago.

    yes, but I bet I could put even a Winnebago through a narrow toll plaza at 120 mph with room to spare. But then I am that type of person. ;)

    Well, they could, as John says, but then they’d be unable to sustain it in level flight due to parasitic drag. There really is no point in arguing with him about the aeronautical stuff. He knows this shit since he woke up with it in his crib.

    as I’ve said, I don’t doubt his expertise, but I do doubt this “parasitic drag” stuff. Perhaps I’ll check into it out of academic curiosity.

    Well, he certainly doesn’t in his affidavit, so I don’t know what to make of what you’re saying. I have no reason to doubt the holes were there as portrayed in countless photos and videos.

    he talks about it in the video. Very mockingly

    Yeah, I believe him on that. I think no more than 60-70% of the plane (volume) would have gone into the building – 30-40% falling into the street below

    we’ll have to agree to disagree. Small point tho. No difference in the big picture.

    • Replies: @Erebus
  238. TheJester says:
    @Chaban

    Harbara is here. QED.

    Who … whom? Cui bono?

    • Replies: @Chaban
  239. Rurik says:

    as I’ve said, I don’t doubt his expertise, but I do doubt this “parasitic drag” stuff. Perhaps I’ll check into it out of academic curiosity.

    the following block quote is from a Pilots for 911 Truth Forum in response to a comment from John Lear regarding those specific passenger jets hitting the towers on that day

    Did America Have the Talent?

    As previously pointed out, John Lear’s affirmation only appears to relate to standard Boeing 767s, the type which were, allegedly, hijacked on the morning of 9/11 and, allegedly, flown by hijackers who were only novice pilots, at best.

    However, I find it difficult to believe, with all the aerospace-engineering talent available in the United States, plus a part of the 3 Trillion dollars that went missing from the Defense Department, that it still would have been absolutely, utterly and entirely impossible for two Boeing 767 lookalikes to have been re-engineered and remotely controlled in order to do what two planes appeared to have done to each one of the Twin Towers, on the morning of 9/11.

    Such an alternative springs to mind because I have been unable to detect any evidence of manipulation or fakery in the many videos depicting the event which, in the days and weeks following 9/11, appeared to be backed up by the published accounts of many eyewitnesses to the actual impact of the, alleged, United Flight 175 with the South Tower. There may be one or two minor videos that have been altered, in some way, but I do not think that the major videos which show the actual impact, or an aircraft in close proximity to the South Tower, shortly before the impact, are video composites.

    In fact, where appropriate, these videos can be edited together to show a degree of positional and motional continuity which would have been virtually impossible to achieve, had they all been faked within the time frames that they started appearing on various TV stations, and it is certain that they would have arrived at such stations some time prior to being broadcast, if only because the financial details would have had to be worked out.

    Most importantly, I cannot see how the video taken by the Fox News “Chopper 5″ helicopter, could have been faked, because it was broadcast, live, and, despite claims to the contrary, an aircraft can be seen in the wide shot of this video, at exactly the right place to tie in with the speed it would have required to have been travelling, in order to hit the South Tower approximately 7.8 seconds later.

    So the question is: Did America have the engineering talent, during the months when 9/11 was in the planning stage, to use a “Monster Hangar” to prepare two such planes?

    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=17660

  240. Boris says:
    @Rurik

    I’ve never believed for two seconds that it was the Arab “terrorists” who were flying the planes. I’ve always assumed those jets were being flown by remote control.

    Just to be clear, there is as much affirmative evidence for your remote control/Pentagon missile theory as there is for the no-planes theory or the hologram theory or for my own Alien Shape-shifters Theory™. The last three are just more implausible.

    But adherents of all the theories will tell you their theories are true because the others are IMPOSSIBLE for one reason or another. But this IMPOSSIBILITY is never tested with any rigor at all.

    And on this The Saker does make a good point about the claimed IMPOSSIBILITY of rigging the buildings for destruction. It’s obviously possible, and it’s certainly more plausible on its own than the no-planes theory or even the Pentagon missile theory. It’s still not very plausible, however.

    But most importantly, there is no good evidence for it. One nanothermite paper in a journal that was busted selling publication isn’t good enough. I would hope you wouldn’t believe my Alien Shape-shifter Theory™ on such scant evidence. If so, you’d be setting yourself up to be fooled.

  241. Erebus says:
    @Ron Unz

    the apparent total lack of contrary eye-witnesses,

    That is patently untrue. Early in the game, the no-plane eyewitnesses outnumbered the planers. That changed over the following hours.

    I would also dispute

    would have happened to be glancing in the direction of the first tower when the plane allegedly hit

    Whether or not they were, something going fast and low and noisy as hell followed by an explosion, and non-stop repetition from the media about planes adds up to “planes hit the towers” in everybody’s head. Bamboozling people is soooooo easy. People want to get bamboozled. They crave it, and will happily, with great relief take their experience of a black blur whizzing by with a great noise and subsequent explosion and turn it into a lumbering Boeing 767 flown by bad guys. They’re safer that way. They sleep better that way. And they’ll cooperate with anybody that’ll help get them there. Sorry, but that’s the way it is with humans.

    In logistical terms, my no-planes argument stems from simplicity. It is simply far easier to get software & computers and cameras to do things they’re designed to do, than it is to get hopelessly unqualified people to make machines do something they’re incapable of doing. Whoever planned and executed 9/11 would have taken the most economical route to the target. That target was to change the socio-political landscape of the USA, and bend it to the direction they wanted it to go. Was that Bin Laden and his merry band of losers? Who knows, but if it was, I have little doubt he would also have tried to find the most economical way of doing it.

    Basically, you have to have the “fewest moving parts possible”.
    If you can do it by arranging to give some empty space in the towers to a couple dozen “Israeli artists” for 4 years, (coincidentally, exactly at the impact zones), some 40 year old “army surplus” missiles donated from your friends in the military, and can count on a full court press from the media (including a couple hundred “witnesses” at, say, $100 each), why would you take chances having the losers in your employ try hijacking and flying around the country in airplanes? I wouldn’t.

  242. Rurik says:

    Just to be clear, there is as much affirmative evidence for your remote control/Pentagon missile theory as there is for the no-planes theory or the hologram theory or for my own Alien Shape-shifters Theory™. The last three are just more implausible.

    glad to hear that you consider the possibility (including the existing “affirmative evidence”) that a missile hit the Pentagon as more plausible than it was sleestacks that did it

    I’ve always considered sleestacks as a less than likely explanation

    But adherents of all the theories will tell you their theories are true because the others are IMPOSSIBLE for one reason or another. But this IMPOSSIBILITY is never tested with any rigor at all.

    have you ever tested the impossibility of it being sleestacks who perpetrated the whole thing?

    I try to explain to people that is might have been sleestacks the whole time! They’re clever little buggers. Sneaky and can shapeshift! I challenge anyone who doubts that distinct possibility to prove that it wasn’t sleestacks!

    and if it was, well then Boris, I guess we all owe you a debt

    • Replies: @Boris
  243. Boris says:
    @Rurik

    (including the existing “affirmative evidence”)

    Wait, they found some missile parts or something?

    have you ever tested the impossibility of it being sleestacks who perpetrated the whole thing?

    Nope. Seems unlikely.

  244. Erebus says:
    @Rurik

    the slower you’re going, the less control you have.

    Same in my sailboat, but let me tell you that I come in real slow into the mooring, control be damned. Why? she simply will not make the turn I have to make to get into the mooring at speed. Control may be greater, but turning radius is greater still because of inertia. Net result? An embarrassing overshoot (meaning I have to paint my neighbour’s boat).

    As for a couple of other points you made.
    - the difference between “specially outfitted jets” and “missiles” is legally zero. That means it weren’t your normal, garden variety terrorist, but actors with state level resources.
    The complaint I’d have with that is that “specially outfitted jets” are costly, and thin on the ground. OTOH, old cruise missiles were all over the place. In the ’90s you could get Soviet stuff in markets across Eurasia.

    I like missiles because they’re an order of magnitude easier. No flight plans, no airfield, no big and costly “modifications”. A missile, in the 9/11 we’re talking about, will do as good a job as an airplane at far lower cost, and even lower risk.

    • Replies: @Rurik
  245. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Groovy Battle for Blair Mountain"] says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    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.

    • Replies: @vetran
  246. Rurik says:

    (including the existing “affirmative evidence”)

    Wait, they found some missile parts or something?

    well all the missile parts (like all the videos and ‘black boxes’ and all other evidence) was all rounded up and secured by the FBI (no experts [without top security clearances] has had any access to any of that evidence. It would damage “national security” for that to happen ; ), but what they couldn’t take with them was the holes in the Pentagon walls. Passenger jets have nose cones that are hollow and filled with electronics and sensors. This is what it would do if it even bumped into something

    whereas the holes in the steel-reinforced Pentagon walls were perfectly symmetrical round holes that are exactly what guided missiles cause

    therefor, it is evidence of a missile (or of course – sleestacks)

    • Replies: @Boris
  247. Miro23 says:
    @Sam Shama

    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.

    • Replies: @Sam Shama
  248. utu says:
    @Ron Unz

    “Now if planes had *not* hit the towers, surely enormous numbers of those eye-witnesses would have come forward over the last 15 years” – Not necessarily. Most of those who were really certain that they did not see a plane has persuaded themselves that they just missed it by fraction of a second so they will not come forward. And some of those who did not sees it forgot about it and began to have a false memory of seeing it after countless watching it on TV and YT. And some who still believe that they did not see it and believe their own eyes rather than camera lens know that by insisting on their version would be considered ridiculous, so they also have doubts and will not come forward.

    Now, there is possibility there were no planes but there were missiles. Those who did not see planes saw something, so for them to be persuaded that they saw a plane is even more likely then for those who saw nothing.

  249. Sam Shama says:
    @Miro23

    [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.]

    So 243 m adults * $10,000 = $2.43 tr or roughly 10% of a single year’s gdp added to the demand side. Suppose we estimated that the demand side multiplier is ~2 , gdp would over a number of years years, roughly double [ 0.5*$2.4tr + (0.5^2)*$2.4tr + ....etc] on account of this stimulus. However I doubt if the effects of this undoubtedly large amount would have any significant effect beyond 10 yrs. If the same amount were to be spent, with the promise of sustained follow-up on real infrastructure projects, then I’d say we should see real jobs with permanence appearing and core PCE moving to the 5-7% territory or even a bit higher. It would be bad for bondholders to be sure, but really nothing like a hyperinflationary wipe out.

    [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.]

    There is a grain of truth to this. But its not by a CB design. Banks have been exhorted by the CB to lend, but they won’t on account of a weak economy and therefore the vicious circle. Company CEOs buy back stock with easy funds because they see no other profitable avenue to expand, so they engage in financial engineering and pad their own pockets.

    • Replies: @Miro23
  250. 5371 says:
    @Sam Shama

    Yes, he’s a loon, his real knowledge exiguous, his self-image resplendent. Bengalis!

  251. Rurik says:
    @Erebus

    The complaint I’d have with that is that “specially outfitted jets” are costly, and thin on the ground. OTOH, old cruise missiles were all over the place

    many people believe that a one Rabbi Dov Zakheim, duel citizen, and comptroller of the Pentagon at the time when several trillion dollars went missing, might have come up with a few of the billions necessary to pull of a stunt like 911.

    If there were one person on this planet that I’d like to question about 911, it would be Zakheim

    I like missiles because they’re an order of magnitude easier.

    I’m convinced that it was a missile that hit the Pentagon. But I’m also certain that it was planes that hit the towers.

    I saw the impact, and the fire balls, and the flying debris, and the all subsequent footage. I watched several different videos with several different angles and all with different audio, and always with the exact same look and feel of it all being very real. And then there are the smoking holes in the buildings that have every appearance of what a building like that would look like if a jet had just crashed into it. There’s no way a simple missle would have caused damage like that, IMHO. And there’s just no way they could have faked all those pictures and videos.

    I’m the first one to say they’ll lie and cheat and even murder people with complete and wanton disdain, but they don’t want to get caught, so I just think that they outfitted some jets for this civilizational, Pearl Harbor level event, intended to foment the kind of hellish and nefarious blood bath in this century as they enjoyed in the last.

    And so far it’s working. Vlad Putin and the world’s put-upon people notwithstanding

  252. Boris says:
    @Rurik

    well all the missile parts (like all the videos and ‘black boxes’ and all other evidence) was all rounded up and secured by the FBI (no experts [without top security clearances] has had any access to any of that evidence

    So there is no evidence of a missile then? Or a Sleestack, for that matter. The FBI could be withholding the Sleestacks instead. Or even also.

    This is what it would do if it even bumped into something

    Who claims that the hole was made by a lone nose cone? I agree the lone nose cone theory is soundly defeated. Good work.

    • Replies: @Rurik
  253. Chaban says:
    @TheJester

    Hey, TheJewster, what’s the weather like in Mosco…, hum, I mean Tel Aviv…?

    Sorry, I get the two confused since Putin’s Israeli citizen of the year award last year.

  254. jb says:
    @NoseytheDuke

    Hmmm…, I’m wondering now. Do you in fact accept the “official story” about the moon landing?

    Just curious.

    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
  255. @Ron Unz

    Thus, I’d guess there were at least hundreds of physical eye-witnesses to the first hit (or whatever) and probably many thousands to the second one.

    Well, okay, that is reasonable a priori reasoning. But surely you know that the most sophisticated a priori reasoning is always trumped by the most simple a posteriori facts. You know, a bunch of ph.D.´s can argue a priori that it can’t possibly be raining outside using very sophisticated arguments, but an illiterate village idiot who looks out the window and sees that it is in fact raining…. that blows all their arguments out of the water, right?

    In this vein, what are the facts? Are there really hundreds of people who testify that they saw a plane hit the building with their own two eyes? I went through the same reasoning as you did when I started considering these matters and… well…. it’s not easy to come to any absolute determination on this.

    As far as I can tell, there are NOT hundreds of eyewitnesses. As you might expect, there are people who have tried to locate these eyewitnesses. What you’ll come across is the statement that it is very easy to find somebody who knows somebody who saw the plane hit the building, but very very hard to find somebody who actually saw it himself!

    I had a nasty argument with a guy, more or less a friend, French guy, nearly two years now. He insisted that planes flew into buildings and I asked him how he knew that and he said he had a friend who was in New York at the time who saw it with his own two eyes. I said that his friend almost certainly saw it on TV like the rest of us and had said that he saw it direct to make his NYC trip more dramatic. And things escalated from there. How dare I call his friend a liar, blah blah.

    But my sense of things is that it always will boil down to that. “Did you see a plane crash into a building?” “Not me, but my good friend did…” Of course, probably if you searched out that good friend who saw it, he would say “No, that wasn’t me, it was this other guy”. That is the way urban legends work, you know… you can never find a guy who saw whatever, but he knows somebody else who saw it….

    Well, anyway, I do not believe that there are “hundreds” of people who claim that they saw a plane hit the building. Or also, there may be people who claim they saw it, but if you press a bit, they end up admitting that they saw it on the TV like everybody else.

    One thing that I definitely recall in the days following the event was that they were showing that scene of the plane flying into the building over and over and over and over again. As other commenters here have hinted at, most people are actually fairly weak-minded and will go along with the consensus view. So somebody who really was just looking at the building and did not see any plane hit it, after being subjected to seeing it on the TV over and over and over and over again, finally, just convinces himself that there was a problem with his “lying eyes”….

    The people behind a psy-op like this have a much deeper understanding (at least heuristically) of human psychology than most of us and they could well understand that, under these circumstances, people, even if they did not see the plane hit, would just convince themselves that it did anyway!

    Now, I reason this way from this point: if you can really get away with just showing the fake video and not having a real plane (or even anything else!) hit the building, then isn’t that the better plan? Actually trying to get a plane to hit a building, as Erebus pointed out, has a lot of points of failure. A fake video made in advance has no similar points of failure!

    It’s hard to get your head around this, I know, it wasn’t easy for me, but Ron, you do understand that reality is not constrained by what your mind can conceive of, right?

    “The Dog That Didn’t Bark”…

    The dog that didn’t bark, I guess, means all the people who were looking at the building and did NOT see a plane hit it. They should be “barking”, i.e. screaming that there was no plane.

    Is that really the case? Or would most people just convince themselves that they must have looked away at the wrong moment, say. Also, you can pepper the crowd with very vocal shills who shout: “My God, My God, look at the plane!” Many people under such conditions, would convince themselves that they also saw a plane!

    Ever gone on one of those whale watching boat trips? You know how those whales are pretty elusive, but they’re always pointing that there is a whale somewhere? I mean, in my experience on these things, you have to be very lucky to see a whale actually breach the surface. Sometimes, it sticks its fin out momentarily, but a lot of the time, there’s just sort of this shadow under the water that, if they didn’t tell me it was a whale, I wouldn’t be sure. But maybe everybody is screaming excitedly that they see the whale and you can’t see shit, but you finally convince yourself that you also see the whale… Those whale watching trips, in my experience, you always end up seeing tons of sea lions and at least some dolphins, but you’ve got to be pretty lucky to really see a whale. The boat trips off the California coast, anyway… The whale watching is a tangent, but it did occur to me…

    Finally, the dog that doesn’t bark argument is very similar to the a priori argument that various conspiracies are impossible because “someone would always talk”. Again, is this really true?

    Speaking of shill, by the way, have you ever seen the video of the “Harley guy”?

    This guy does claim that he saw a plane hit the building. Do you think this is a real witness? I’ve watched this clip a number of times and… you notice this black guy in a suit behind the Harley guy? He seems to be the guy’s minder, probably just making sure the guy hits the main agreed talking points. Or, say, if the Harley guy had got tongue tied and started screwing up, the black guy was going to step up and start salvaging the situation maybe… The interviewer tries to interview the black guy at the end, but then the guy just says some non-commital something or other, but I guess all the talking points had been hit.

  256. @Ron Unz

    Oh, it just occurs to me that this whole topic came about underneath my first article and I outlined my thinking about and some other people did as well…. and my thinking about this actually has not particularly changed in the last half year, so it’s easier just to link what I previously wrote and then you can also follow the discussion from there, if you’re interested:

    http://www.unz.com/article/battling-the-matrix-and-freeing-oneself-from-the-roger-rabbit-mental-world/#comment-1351607

    and also here:

    http://www.unz.com/article/battling-the-matrix-and-freeing-oneself-from-the-roger-rabbit-mental-world/#comment-1352643

  257. @jb

    Excellent use of whataboutery. Your teachers must be proud of you indeed, or not!

    • Replies: @jb
  258. Sam Shama says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    The people behind a psy-op like this have a much deeper understanding (at least heuristically) of human psychology than most of us and they could well understand that, under these circumstances, people, even if they did not see the plane hit, would just convince themselves that it did anyway!

    And how would you know that? Are you a psy-op agent or is that the power of suggestion at work on you from repeatedly watching Zero Dark Thirty? So according to your brilliant theory “shills” were placed at various locations to “suggest” and thus hypnotise throngs of witnesses around the WTC!

    That anyone can actually suggest, there were no witnesses on the streets of the 2nd impact, speaks to a level of mental obstinacy found only in your special class of idiots, Jon.

    I think a prize of the year can easily be devised for you [you'll like it] : a yearly pass for the Upper Manhattan sewage recycling plant.

  259. @Jonathan Revusky

    Wow! You sure do like to type!

    Poor guy…you’ve been driven barking mad by disinformation. You need some down-time, brother.

  260. Sam J. says:

    All the 9-11 talk by the lying “Spoofers” is just a distraction. It it 100% that building #7 was demoed and could not have been brought down by fire because of the basic physics of the fall. You don’t need to rely on anyone to know the truth. Look with your own eyes. Basic high school physics. Undisputable. Building #7 fell the same speed as a rock dropped beside it in free air for roughly 108 feet. This means the building had no resistance to falling except air. Impossible without explosives.

    All materials fall the same speed in a gravity field disregarding air friction which I don’t thing we need to worry about for a building falling. So the speed of our imaginary rock falling next to the building is just gravity related. The speed of the buildings falling, the exact same as the rock, is just gravity also. This means that there was NOTHING to slow the fall of the building. The density of the material under the imaginary rock falling was air. The building fell the same therefore the density of the material under the building was also air. We know this is not true. Building #7 was not hovering in the air. The lower portions of the building were demoed out from under it.

    It’s makes NO difference how big the fires were. The buildings density never reached the same value as air! The fires did not boil away the building structure where they were light as air! All the talk about damage, fires, this, that, all bullshit because the building fell with all four corners almost level the same speed as a rock in AIR. If a building falls as fast as a rock and the rock is falling through JUST AIR then the building is falling through JUST AIR also. Simple equivalence. 1=1, 2=2, big rock falling in air=small rock falling in air=building falling in air. One problem is people sometimes believe that a really heavy thing will fall faster than a lighter thing. Not true. Look at this video of the Apollo astronaut dropping a feather and a hammer on the Moon. They land at the same time.

    Here’s a video of reporters going into building #7 AFTER the North tower supposedly fell on it and destroyed it sufficiently enough for it to collapse completely. Look at :54 you see the #7 for the building on the door.

    Now you’ve seen video of the inside where there is NO massive damage to make all four sides of the building fall. You want pictures of the back? Here’s a picture of the South side of building #7, facing the North tower, after it had fallen. There is no huge gaping hole. There is no massive fire going all the way up the building. So you can’t say it’s the South side and we have plenty of video and pictures of the North side of building #7 pictures with no damage at all.

    Here’ another NIST FOIA released video taken between one and two hours before building #7 fell. There’s around three floors on fire.

    (Watch the reporter pan up at 2:54. You can clearly see the whole building is not on fire. This side shown is the North side of building #7. Later you can see the fires mostly around three or four floors only and in isolated spots.)
    If the fires were hot enough to melt steel then why isn’t the glass in the windows melted? Glass melts at an extremely lower temperature that steel. Ever put a metal can and a glass bottle in a campfire? The glass bottle melts but the steel can will still be intact. These fires were no hotter than a campfire. One last video of all sides from 23 angles also showing the miraculous collapse.

    Fireman retired so now he can talk. He was right next to the damn building. Says,”…there was an explosion and the building came down…”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQrpLp-X0ws

    For more info look at a site by some engineers that lay out the evidence.

    http://www.ae911truth.org/

    There’s lots more. The governments whole story is bullshit.

    • Replies: @Miro23
    , @Erebus
    , @Boris
  261. Miro23 says:
    @Sam Shama

    The beauty of infrastructure projects is that they hang around for a long time and give value over many years. If the money was spent on hairdressing, it would only give value until your next visit.

    But, having said that, infrastructure can also destroy capital (e.g. Japanese bridges to nowhere).

    The long forgotten idea of creating/using capital, is that it has to go into a projects that are able to both return the investment and pay interest. These are very special situations like the opening of the American West, or rebuilding Europe after WWII. Otherwise capital is just destroyed and you build a debt mountain.

    “Banks have been exhorted by the CB to lend, but won’t on account of a weak economy and therefore the vicious circle.”

    A conspiracy theorist would note that 1) the FED leadership is not stupid 2) the upper ranks of the FED/Treasury are all Wall St. guys 3) Wall St. came out of QE as the big winner. There is a theory that the FED & Treasury are there to defend the public against banking special interests, but I wouldn’t give it much credence.

  262. utu says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    For people it is easier to see what they did not see than not see if they saw it. The set of people claiming that they saw a plane will be larger than the set who insists that they looked and did not see. Comment #254

  263. utu says:

    SELECTED EYEWITNESS REPORTS DESCRIBING OBJECT STRIKING WTC2:

    A SMALL PLANE
    1. “At that point we were still not sure that it was a plane that had hit the tower. There was some talk from the civilians coming down that a plane hit. The consensus was that it was a small plane.”- Credited to: Roy Chelson

    A CESSNA OR LEAR JET TYPE OR…
    2. “Numerous civilians were telling me that a plane had hit the building. There were discrepancies as to the type of plane. Some were saying it was a Cessna or Lear jet type, a small jet plane. Some said it was a large passenger plane. One person actually said that it was like a military style plane that actually shot missiles into the building”. – Credited to: Anthony Bartolomey

    [MORE]

    A SMALL (TRAINING) PLANE
    3. “I saw it come up from the left, and I saw the plane coming through to the building, go inside, a small plane….no, no, it was plane, you know, like they teach the people to pilot a plane, a small plane, you know, it was that kind of plane…, and I never saw that plane before. It’s like something, I don’t know, it’s like they worked with the motors, I never saw a plane like that before!”- Credited to: Karim Arraki

    A CESSNA
    4. “I was on my way to work…traffic was excellent…I received a call saying a small Cessna had hit the World trade Center…I was asked to go and man the Office of Emergency Management at the World Trade Center 7 on its 23d floor…” – Credited to: Barry Jennings

    LIKE A SMALLER PLANE
    5. “I was waiting a table and I literally saw a, it seemed to be a small plane. I just heard a couple of noises, it looked like it like it ‘bounced’ off the building and then I heard a, I just saw a huge like ball of fire on top and then the smoke seemed to simmer down…it just seemed like a smaller plane, I don’t think it was anything commercial.”- Stuart Nurick, LIVE on CBS NEWS

    A SMALL, SMALL JET PLANE
    6. “…We saw a plane flying low overhead which caught all of our attention. We looked up. It was making a b-line for the World Trade Centre. It was very low, extremely low, not a big plane like an airliner …uh… but not a tiny propeller plane, a small, small jet plane.”- Credited to: Mary Cozza

    A LIGHT COMMUTER PLANE
    7. “I mean, I hate to admit this, but I’m sitting there hoping that someone has made a mistake; there has been an accident; that this isn’t the hijacked airplane, because there is confusion. We were told it was a light commuter airplane.” Credited to: (news report)

    THOUGHT PLANE WAS MUCH SMALLER
    8. “I thought it could have been an accident…I thought the plane was much smaller…”- Credited to: Sid Bedingfield

    A PROP JET
    9. “I was told by somebody that we had an eyewitness who happened to be an off-duty firefighter who told me that he saw the first building get hit and it was hit by a prop jet, which I think turned out to be the wrong information, but everybody sees things differently.”- Credited to: Steven Mosiello

    A SMALLER TYPE PLANE
    10. “And we went to a high point in our building, which is on the 25th floor, and you had a clear view of both World Trade Centers and the one that was smoking hard, and there was another plane that was flying low, and we just looked at it, and before we know it, it was just kamikaze, boom, right into the other tower… but it didn’t seem like a big passenger jet. It was a smaller type plane, because it made some pretty radical turn, and flying low…” – Credited to: Mr. Tractsonburg

    A SMALL JET
    11. “We’re walking the dogs and we saw a plane flying really low, a jet, a small jet, and it flew directly into the World Trade Center..”- Credited to: (news report)

    SMALL CARGO MILITARY
    12. I got out of the car, and I told Larry I saw an FBI agent and I was going to start talking to him. I gave him my card, and he gave me a card. I said I thought that that second plane that went into the south tower was a military plane, like a transport or small cargo military. – Credited to: Battalion Chief Brian O’Flaherty

    A BOMB….A MISSILE
    13. “Hey Grandpa, I’ll tell you what woke me up. They bombed the World Trade Centre. I’m looking at it and Mi-Kyung’s video taping it. Terrible. I heard, Grandpa, I saw it. It could have been a plane, but I think it was a bomb…a missile…er…this could be world war three.”- Credited to: Mi Kyung Heller

    LIKE A MISSILE
    14. “…I can only describe as, it sounded like a missile, not an airplane….it was definitely not the sound of a prop plane or anything like that….I grew up on military bases and I know the sound of jets and I’ve been in war zones and heard those kinds of different sounds….the sound itself was not of a prop plane , it was perhaps a jet, but it could have been a missile as well….it was high pitched, but it had a…er…a…whooshing sound, not, not like a prop plane…”- Don Dahler, LIVE on ABC TV

    A ROCKET
    15. “It was a big fireball or something from the plane I guess, came from across the street in front of our rig, and as we get out of the rig, there’s a cop, city police officer, in the street. He’s telling us, “I’m getting out of here. I just saw a rocket.” He said he saw it come off the Woolworth Building and hit the tower”. – Credited to: Peter Fallucca

    SOMETHING – PLANE OR MISSILE
    16. “At that point I assumed you can’t have two — it can’t be an accident to have two planes. So, I don’t know if there’s planes or missiles or what but something was hitting this thing. You saw debris was falling down.“ – Credited to: Brian Dixon

    NOT A BIG PLANE
    17. ”I was saying to him, “That plane is closer to us. It’s really not a big plane going towards the building.” Two seconds later it rammed into the building. “- Credited to: James Murphy

    THOUGHT THEY SAW A MISSILE
    18. ” Some people thought they saw a missile, now I don’t know how they could differentiate, but we might leave open the possibility that this was a missile attack on these buildings …” Dick Oliver, LIVE on FOX News

    LIKE THE SIZE OF A GOLF BALL
    19. “I saw two other planes. One came in one way, and the other came in the other way, and there was a plane in the middle that was way far off in the distance. Then the plane in the middle just disappeared into a little fireball. It looked like the size of a golf ball from where I could see it. And the other two planes veered off into opposite directions.” – Credited to: Patricia Ondrovic

    http://www.septemberclues.info/faq_4.shtml

    http://www.septemberclues.info/Report%20on%20NYC%20First%20Responder%209-11%20Accounts.pdf

  264. L.K says:

    In my comment 230 I mentioned political and military leaders from other countries who stated that bin Laden and al-Qaeda simply could not have carried out the attacks. More on that, from investigative jornalist Christopher Bollyn:

    In Germany, I had the opportunity to interview Andreas von Bülow near Köln. Von Bülow, an author and former member of the Bundestag (the German parliament) served on the parliamentary commission which oversees the three branches of the German secret service. Von Bülow said he thought Israel’s intelligence service, Mossad, was behind the 9-11 attacks. These attacks, he said, were carried out to turn public opinion against the Arabs and boost military and security spending.
    “You don’t get the higher echelons,” von Bülow said, referring to the “architectural structure” which masterminds such terror attacks. At this level, he said, the organization doing the planning, such as Mossad, is primarily interested in affecting public opinion. The terrorists who actually commit the crimes are what von Bülow calls “the working level,” such as the nineteen Arabs who allegedly hijacked the planes on September 11. “The working level is part of the deception,” he said.
    “Ninety-five percent of the work of the intelligence agencies around the world is deception and disinformation,” he said, which is widely propagated in the mainstream media creating an accepted version of events. “Journalists don’t even raise the simplest questions,” he said. “Those who differ are labeled as crazy.”
    Eckehardt Werthebach, the former president of the Verfassungsschutz (a branch of German intelligence), told me that “the deathly precision” and “the magnitude of planning” behind the attacks would have needed “years of planning.” Such a sophisticated operation, Werthebach said, required the “fixed frame” of a state intelligence organization, something not found in a “loose group” of terrorists. Both Werthebach and von Bülow said the lack of a complete “blue ribbon” investigation, with congressional hearings, into the events of September 11 was incomprehensible.[...]As incomprehensible as it might seem, the Bush administration delayed and avoided an official investigation for as long as possible – at least until all of the evidence was destroyed. The steel from the World Trade Center was quickly shipped to Asia where it was melted down. The evidence from the crime scene was being destroyed as quickly as possible. This was clearly criminal, yet the highest authorities in the U.S. government and the Department of Justice were allowing it to happen.

    So, a good basic question to these shit eaters, like ‘boris’ & co, is;
    Why did the government destroy the evidence b4 it could be examined, in direct violation of federal law regarding crime scene protocol?
    The worst terror attack in the history of the US & the government proceeded to quickly destroy the evidence b4 a forensic investigation of it could be performed.
    Why, shit-eaters?

    • Replies: @alexander
  265. Miro23 says:
    @Sam J.

    Thank you for a very good summary.

    The problem now is not “What happened to the WTC buildings?”, it’s “Who is covering for who?” and when will some organization have sufficient independent power to detain and question the suspects.

  266. 5371 says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    Just in from Jonathan Revusky: whales don’t really exist

    • LOL: Sam Shama
  267. @L.K

    So, clearly, OBL/Al-Qaeada, did not have the capabilities to do 9-11.
    But who, who had the motive and the means to carry out – and get alway with – such a murderous and complex operation?

    Well, this discussion has mostly focused on the technical aspects of the operation, but probably the more important thing to realize is that whoever perpetrated this psy op had to have a pretty strong degree of control of the American mainstream media AND the Western MSM generally. The minute this went down, they were just screaming 24/7 about Osama Bin Laden when there wasn’t any proof at all of this (and there still isn’t.)

    So when you ask, broadly speaking, who has this kind of power over the media, you really get a short list of the people who could be behind such an operation. Also, there is the question…

    If, whenever you see a terrorist act and Arabs are being framed for it, you just automatically assumed that Mossad was behind it, how often would end up being wrong?

  268. I read The Last Investigation re JFK and in it the author asked who had the power to pull back the standard defences? Who had the power to insert the false narrative immediately into the media? and who had the power to control the “investigation” and manage a coverup? It seems these questions serve us well when trying to assess any false flag operation.

  269. @Rurik

    Well, that the holes were there does not absolutely prove that they were caused by the impact of the planes in question, does it?

    JR, come now..

    Just to be clear on this point, I thought it was clear that when I said “the planes in question”, I meant the Boeing passenger jets that were allegedly hijacked. I think it’s possible that some other aircraft impacted the building. OR a missile. I thought that was clear given what I wrote after that. We’re not in disagreement about the really big first order issue. Neither of us believe the hijacking story or that the Boeing passenger jets hit the building.

    The question is whether they had something else hit the building OR whether they really did just showed fake video on the TV thus relying on the suggestibility of people who were on-site to “remember” something they never saw. I don’t know the answer to that, but I don’t reject the latter possibility out of hand, as you seem to.

    Or, there might not have even been any passenger jets that took off. But I doubt that, since that would have necessitated a whole lot of rigging of records to accord with the narrative.

    Well, again, I don’t know for sure, but I don’t find the argument very convincing. If they did it that way, rigging some records hardly strikes as the most difficult part of the operation. Not that I know either exactly what that would entail…

    everything about those impacts looks to me exactly like it would if that were to happen for real.

    Well, maybe, but I am not so sure that I could trust myself to judge. I could watch Titanic and think that everything looks exactly like an ocean liner actually striking an iceberg and sinking. When you don’t have any baseline of prior similar events in your own experience to compare to…. I mean that could just be an aspect of the whole thing. Who ever saw a jet hitting a steel-framed skyscraper? What is it supposed to look like?

    I can convince myself the hijacking story is bullshit. I can convince myself that no Boeing passenger jets hit the buildings. We agree on that! As for whether none/some/most/all of the images and video we were shown that day is actually faked, I have to say I don’t honestly know for sure. So my disagreement with you is not so much to say you are wrong, but I am just saying I don’t quite understand why you would be sure you are right on this.

    All this aspect of things, I think it would have to be investigated by a real investigation that could get some real expert testimony, and have something serious, where these people are testifying under oath at risk of perjury…

    If empirically minded people took control of an investigation, well, there are empirical experiments one could carry out. Like, if a video montage expert like Ace Baker says he could fake the video, enclose him in a room with a fairly powerful computer (2001 standards obviously) and the 2001 vintage video editing tools and see if he really can do it!

    Try to reconstruct the crime. Like if a high level safecracker claims that the bank vault combination lock in Fort Knox, say, could be cracked in 30 minutes flat, enclose him in the room and see if he can do it! I mean to say, if you could really run the experiments, there would be no need for all these a priori arguments about what is possible or not.

    Part of the whole issue is that there is also clear lack of interest on the part of officialdom to get to the truth. And that, in itself is already pretty incriminating!

    • Replies: @Boris
  270. Erebus says:
    @Sam J.

    Thank you for bringing this discussion back to core issues.

    The gravitational collapse of all 3 WTC buildings provides the foundation for the truther position. The official story piles ever more impossibilities on top, but you really don’t need any more than that to blow the whole edifice away. Force and Inertia are concepts fundamental to understanding the physical world. Until somebody explains how the towers fell at free fall speed, truthers can rest their case.

    • Replies: @Boris
  271. vetran says:
    @Sam Shama

    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

  272. vetran says:
    @War for Blair Mountain

    “Open Access Journals are the problem…greedy…dishonest…predatory…
    … The Jones-Harrit-Pace nanothermite paper would have been rejected by every major peer reviewed spectroscopy journal.”

    So, instead you may prefer read this one from Fox News, in which it admit inadvertently that shortly before the WTC7 collapsed, the owner Larry Silverstein was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building?

    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/04/22/jeffrey-scott-shapiro-jesse-venture-book-lies-truthers-ground-zero-sept-shame.html

    If so, how did Silverstein expect to demolish the building safely when such a process takes weeks or even months to properly set up, even without the additional chaos surrounding WTC 7 on 9/11? How could explosives have been correctly placed on such short notice inside a burning building that had already been evacuated – unless the explosives were already in place?

    “PULL IT” (lol)

  273. Boris says:
    @Sam J.

    Look with your own eyes. Basic high school physics. Undisputable. Building #7 fell the same speed as a rock dropped beside it in free air for roughly 108 feet.

    Even in high school, you have to show your work. The NIST has done so. You claim you can tell free fall speed just by looking at a video? Really?

    our imaginary rock

    Oh, you didn’t say you had an imaginary rock! This changes everything.

    If the fires were hot enough to melt steel

    They weren’t. And they didn’t have to be.

    The governments whole story is bullshit.

    The imaginary rock has spoken.

    • Replies: @David Bauer
    , @Sam J.
  274. Boris says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    If empirically minded people took control of an investigation

    The NIST report was written by empirically-minded people.

    That’s the problem. You demand an investigation, but unless it returns with a conclusion that you like, you will call it a fraud. This is how conspiracy theorists work. They demand an investigation into the WTC collapse. When it comes out, they accuse the experts of fraud and go back to imaginary rocks. Very empirical.

  275. Rurik says:

    why you would be sure you are right on this.

    Hey JR,

    we’re in agreement on almost every single aspect. But on this one particular, I’ll try to make my case…

    (with absolute respect for the opinions and individuals with whom I’m debating with here)

    911 was going to be the most audacious and ambitious false flag that’s ever been committed in history. (and that’s saying a lot !) They’ve spent over a trillion dollars just on the Iraq war alone, and that’s just a minor subsidiary goal when compared to the civilizational and era/epoch ending goals they had/have in mind- using 911 as the pretext. So I hardly think money is of consequence at this level. They literally have trillions of dollars and the entire apparatus of the deepstate, including all the resources of the CIA and Mossad and all the other acronyms of Satan; FBI, NSA, ATF and so forth at their beckon call. Why wouldn’t they use a specially outfitted jet to slam into the towers in as dramatic a way as possible? Why use a missile when there’s the distinct possibility that a lot of people would have had their cameras trained on the towers? Look at all the inconvenience the videos of building seven have caused them.

    But most of all the reason I’m (relatively) certain it was a jet is due to the holes. The damage to the facade of those buildings could have only been caused by a jet’s impact. A missile wouldn’t do that unless it was shaped exactly like a passenger jet. With wings and all.

    Please just consider those holes and how long they lingered and how many hundreds of people and news organizations and amateur videographers were talking films and pictures. If they were ‘Wile E Coyote’ holes, (fake in other words) then someone surely would have taken a picture of the real holes for comparison, but even today, there is not even one photo or video or anything else that ever contradicts the images we all have seen of those smoking holes.

    That is my main reasons for being (relatively) certain that there was actual jet planes that struck the towers.

    Also that all the videos I’ve seen, like the one where the first plane hit, with the sound and the firemen and the panning of the camera to see the impact, and then the impact and the sound of it, and the reactions, all of it. But especially the second impact, where there certainly must have been dozens if not hundreds of video cameras all trained on the towers by now.. including local TV stations and amateur journalists and so many others. Why take a risk with something as momentous as this? When it came to the planning of this operation, I just don’t think money was a restriction of any kind. Building look-alike jets would have been nothing for this lot.

    here’s a video of the second impact with several different angles. The perpetrators would have had to doctor every single one. And then somehow suppress all the ones with no plane, just showing either a missile or just an explosion with no impact. There are no such videos.

    • Replies: @Erebus
  276. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Groovy Battle for Blair Mountain"] says:
    @Boris

    Boris

    The MIT Engineering department put out a book…a collection of essays…by the MIT Engineering Faculty explaining the collapse of the Twin Towers.

    Then there is the Bazat-Zhou paper published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics explaining the progressive collapse of the TT. Actually, Bazat-Zhou…both phds in mechanical engineering…published three papers on the collapse of the TT.

    The NIST does fundamental research on the physics of Technology. Several researchers at the NIST were awarded a Noble Prize in Physics for their research on refining the Atomic Clock’s precision and accuracy. But according to the 9/11 Truthers…The NIST is part of the Bush Family 9/11 Conspiracy.. According to the late Alex Cockburn… a very good friend of his who was also a friend of the Bush Family spent a weekend at the Bush Family coastal Maine Summer Estate. His friend complained that “The only GD reading material I could find in the Bush Summer Home in Maine was “250 Fart Jokes”.

    The 9/11 Truthers are bona fide psychotic delusionals

  277. Rurik says:
    @Boris

    So there is no evidence of a missile then?

    well yes, actually there is. The hole is a kind of evidence, since there’s nothing else that would have damaged the building in exactly such a way. But then this isn’t really any kind of attempt to get at the truth, is it shit eater? This is a exercise in masturbatory snark and wankeresque derision wouldn’t you say?

    Who claims that the hole was made by a lone nose cone? I agree the lone nose cone theory is soundly defeated. Good work.

    one of the first lessons they should teach a shit eater is that snark is never really a good substitute for a reasoned argument.

    And just in case there are any readers out there who’re wondering what the holes in the walls actually represent, it has everything to do with the trajectory of the missile that struck the Pentagon. And that’s what the shit eater is trying to obscure, by wiping gibbering excrement on ‘the walls’ of this discussion.

    when they start taking about shape-shifting lizard people, and resort to smug snark, it’s always a shit eater trying to shill for ones who’re actually guilty of that crime on 911. They really don’t want it becoming common knowledge that that whole murderous atrocity was planned and executed by the very people we Americans are forced to send billions of dollars of tribute to each year. {Israel} So they send in the clowns- (the shit eaters)- to do damage control.

    • Replies: @Boris
  278. vetran says:
    @Boris

    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?

  279. Erebus says:
    @Rurik

    The damage to the facade of those buildings could have only been caused by a jet’s impact.

    I suggest you dig into the “Israeli Artists” that were camped out in exactly the two impact zones (coincidentally of course) for the 4 years prior to 9/11. They had ample time to rig explosives to make whatever shape of Wiley E. Coyote hole they wanted to make. If the hoax was to send a Roadrunner cartoon through the building, the appropriately shaped hole would have appeared.

    Check out E-Team & Gelitin. There were a number of others, but I forget their names now.

    • Replies: @Rurik
  280. Rurik says:
    @Erebus

    If the hoax was to send a Roadrunner cartoon through the building,

    but why?

    if it was possible to build and remote control jets into the buildings, they why not just do that?

    and then of course there are all the doctored videos you’d have to produce, from varying angles and even live shots from a helicopter. And if it was a missile or just an explosion, why isn’t there even one video of this or even one eye witness that has claimed that that is what they saw?

    • Replies: @Sparkon
  281. @Boris

    Hey, Boris we’re still waiting for your reply:

    ” As incomprehensible as it might seem, the Bush administration delayed and avoided an official investigation for as long as possible – at least until all of the evidence was destroyed. The steel from the World Trade Center was quickly shipped to Asia where it was melted down. The evidence from the crime scene was being destroyed as quickly as possible. This was clearly criminal, yet the highest authorities in the U.S. government and the Department of Justice were allowing it to happen.

    So, a good basic question to these shit eaters, like ‘boris’ & co, is;
    Why did the government destroy the evidence b4 it could be examined, in direct violation of federal law regarding crime scene protocol?”

    • Replies: @Boris
  282. Boris says:
    @Erebus

    Until somebody explains how the towers fell at free fall speed

    They didn’t. The Saker’s article points to truther evidence that WTC 1&2 fell at ~6m/sec`2 , not 9.8m/sec`2.

    Even if wrongly you take this article’s view of “the north face” of WTC7 as the whole building, it still didn’t fall at free fall speed for the entire collapse.

    • Replies: @Erebus
  283. Boris says:
    @Rurik

    since there’s nothing else that would have damaged the building in exactly such a way

    You’ll need to show your work here. Lots of things can make round holes. An engine. A jet of burning fuel and debris.

    But then this isn’t really any kind of attempt to get at the truth, is it shit eater? This is a exercise in masturbatory snark and wankeresque derision wouldn’t you say?

    Declaring that some hole that you have examined only in a picture could ONLY be made by a missile is not “an attempt to get at the truth.” It’s too lazy to even be described as “wankeresque.”

    that snark is never really a good substitute for a reasoned argument.

    Posting a picture of a dented nose cone is not a “reasoned argument.”

    it has everything to do with the trajectory of the missile that struck the Pentagon. And that’s what the shit eater is trying to obscure, by wiping gibbering excrement on ‘the walls’ of this discussion.

    If I really wanted to obscure the trajectory, then I’d post pictures of nose-cones instead of, you know, actually talking about trajectory. So are you applying that excrement with you own hands?

    My theory is that you got embarrassed with your nose-cone pic and then backpedaled to the real argument being “trajectory,” which you somehow forgot to mention the first time.

    • Replies: @vinteuil
    , @Rurik
  284. jb says:
    @NoseytheDuke

    I was just asking a simple question. Well, do you?

    (Also, do you actually believe that I have “teachers,” or is that some sort of metaphor? I honestly don’t know, and I’m curious to find out).

  285. @Boris

    Boris – You are showing your ignorance. The NIST Building 7 report ITSELF ADMITTED that the building fell at absolute freefall speed for the first 2+ seconds of its collapse. If you’re going to debate these points with truthers, you might want to do some research next time so that you have at least some vague idea what you’re talking about.

  286. Boris says:
    @Stonehands

    Why did the government destroy the evidence b4 it could be examined, in direct violation of federal law regarding crime scene protocol?

    There is nothing vert unusual about the government’s behavior with regard to the scraps from the twin towers. They behaved as I would expect them to behave if they genuinely thought the towers were felled by planes and the resultant damage. How is the government supposed to foresee the conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11?

    • Replies: @Stonehands
  287. Boris says:
    @David Bauer

    I replied to this point in detail in post 50. You introduce a new error. The north face of the building did not accelerate at free fall until 1.75 seconds after it began falling, which is ~7 seconds after the east penthouse and much of the interior of the building began to collapse.

    • Replies: @ogunsiron
  288. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Groovy Battle for Blair Mountain"] says:
    @David Bauer

    Bauer

    The 9/11 Engineers should submit a paper to a leading Engineering Journal such as the Journal of Engineering Mechanics….so that the 9/11 Truthers can decisively win the scientific debate as to how the TT actually collapse.

    Or the 9/11 Truther Scientists can contact the MIT Department of Physical Chemistry and the Department of Mechanical Engineering and request to present their nanothermite spectroscopy results and free fall calculations.

  289. vinteuil says:
    @Boris

    Wow – what a thread.

    Every swivel-eyed, frothing-at-the-mouth loon in the vicinity vs. Boris.

    It’s really kind of awe-inspiring.

    • Replies: @Rurik
    , @Jonathan Revusky
  290. Sparkon [AKA "SP"] says:
    @Rurik

    but why?

    The tragicomic silhouette of the airplane on the building’s facade is to reinforce the illusion that a Boeing jetliner hit the building, caused the explosion, and then disappeared into the structure.

    It was a televised Magic Show on 9/11.

    The laws of physics prohibit aluminum from slicing through steel. It is true that certain parts of the 767, such as the engines and landing gear, are not made of aluminum, are extremely strong, and might possibly have been able to penetrate the steel exterior of the WTC if only they’d had enough velocity.

    Even if we accept 560 mph as the speed of the purported 767 upon impact into WTC 2, and convert that speed into feet per second, commonly used in ballistics to rate the penetrating power of a projectile, the result is just 821 fps, about the muzzle velocity of a BB gun.

    Anti-tank weapons use hardened projectile points fashioned from tungsten, depleted uranium, and other dense, ultra-hard materials which have muzzle velocities in excess of 5000 fps in order to penetrate an enemy tank’s armor, which is usually made of specialty steel. To save weight, some light armored vehicles are made from aluminum, but anti-tank projectiles never are because aluminum cannot penetrate steel.

    In this image of the WTC under construction, note the dense steel matrix of the building’s exterior walls. The windows were just 19″ wide.

    and then of course there are all the doctored videos you’d have to produce, from varying angles and even live shots from a helicopter.

    You may not be familiar with the capabilities of 3D graphics. Once the 3D model is created, you may have as many (virtual) cameras as you require, and each will show the aircraft–in this case–in the correct orientation, with the correct perspective in relationship to the buildings, and at the desired speed. The only real limitation is the amount of computing horsepower you have at your disposal to render the various camera angles, and do the compositing from the various viewpoints. Hollywood does this stuff all the time, but none of the 9/11 impact videos are anywhere near Hollywood or even HDTV quality. The smaller the frame size (video resolution), the more quickly it can be rendered.

    For further edification, I suggest buying or finding a copy of Microsoft Flight Simulator X. You’ll note the high quality imagery, and the ability to view the airplane from different positions in real time.

    If you are so disposed, you’ll also find from your time with FSX that it is far from easy to fly a jetliner into a relatively small target like a building while moving at 500+ mph.

    In fact, it is exceedingly difficult.

    And if it was a missile …why isn’t there even … one eye witness that has claimed that that is what they saw?

    You may have missed utu’s comment #271 above (see ‘more’):

    A ROCKET
    15. “It was a big fireball or something from the plane I guess, came from across the street in front of our rig, and as we get out of the rig, there’s a cop, city police officer, in the street. He’s telling us, “I’m getting out of here. I just saw a rocket.” He said he saw it come off the Woolworth Building and hit the tower”. – Credited to: Peter Fallucca

    Therefore, a simple explanation is that a cruise missile was fired at the WTC, and CGI of a Boeing 767 was composited, or pasted over the missile.

    But whatever the case, real airplanes or CGI, we must keep in mind that the airplanes did not–and could not– destroy the towers. WTC 1 & 2 were designed to absorb the impact of a Boeing 707, a jetliner of approximately the same size, fuel capacity, and speed of a 767.

    “The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it, that was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building could probably sustain multiple impacts of jet liners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door – this intense grid – and the plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.”

    –Frank A. DeMartini
    Mgr. WTC Construction and Project Management

    You didn’t say anything about the fires, so I will simply note in closing that, other than on 9/11/2001, no steel-framed high-rise building has ever collapsed from fire. Understand that some high rises have been entirely consumed by flames, burning for hours like a torch, but none has ever collapsed.

    The inherent fire-resistance of steel-framed skyscrapers was, in fact, a strong selling point for this type of construction when it first appeared.

    –sp–

  291. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Groovy Battle for Blair Mountain"] says:
    @David Bauer

    Bauer

    Admitted..as if they were admitting that the Truthers are right…more raw untreated Truther Sewage. The NIST measured a 5.9 second collapse..the NIST partitioned the collapse into three stages. The 2 second free fall occurred in the 2 stage of the collapse.

    Larger point:submit a scientific paper to a high quality Engineering Journal for peer review..otherwise fuck off Truther!!!!

  292. Rurik says:
    @Boris

    My theory is that you got embarrassed with your nose-cone pic and then backpedaled

    naw, actually I was only trying to tweak you a little, since you’re scanning this thread for any crumb to take issue with. There are the things that are set in stone, like the pre-knowledge of the collapse of building seven, and the destruction of the forensic evidence, and the resistance to any investigation, or the Mossad boyz with their cameras set up, and then the whole avalanche of evidence that 911 was obviously an inside job. I didn’t need to mention the holes in the Pentagon, but I did because that issue hasn’t yet been exhaustively confirmed as yet more proof of the government’s lies. And I figured you’d jump on it. And I was correct.

    You know I don’t really like calling people names like ‘shit eater’. It’s puerile in a way, and vulgar. But then as you become convinced that you’re dealing with someone who isn’t acting in good faith, but rather is trying to muddle the discussion- on behalf of and as an apologist for- the murderous scum who committed that singularly heinous crime on that infamous day.. (and why..), well then somehow calling such a person a ‘shit eater’ is far too kind, wouldn’t you say?

  293. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Groovy Battle for Blair Mountain"] says:

    Correction: The NIST measured the Building 7 collapse in 5.4 seconds….

  294. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Groovy Battle for Blair Mountian"] says:
    @Sparkon

    SP

    It is absolutely urgent that you contact the MIT Engineering Department and demand to give a Power Point Presentation to the MIT Engineering Faculty and Engineering. Graduate Students!!!!!!….and make sure you take the psychotic delusional Paul Craig Roberts with you….don’t forget to tell Paul to bring his two white pussy cats also…I am certain that what they have to say to the MIT Engineering Faculty will revolutionize Euler Beam Buckling Theory!!!!!!!!!!!

  295. Boris says:

    calling such a person a ‘shit eater’ is far too kind, wouldn’t you say?

    It’s not like I care what a Nazi apologist calls me. If you liked me, I’d be worried.

  296. Rurik says:
    @vinteuil

    vs. Boris

    well then jump in!

    what I’d like to know is how the Israelis knew the attack was going to happen, and had cameras set up to “document the event”

    were they psychics? and just realized it at the moment? Or would the low-down dirty rats inside the Israeli government, who collects billions of dollars each year from the American people, be perfectly willing to watch thousands of us get slaughtered without warning us?

    what do you think?

    • Replies: @L.K
    , @L.K
    , @L.K
  297. 9/11 needs a serious forum like the holocaust forum. just to be safe from trolls and retards. so serious discussion can happen.

  298. Rurik says:
    @Sparkon

    The laws of physics prohibit aluminum from slicing through steel.

    I understand the properties of aluminum and steel. Steel is much harder than aluminum, but not indestructible when the aluminum is combined with a sufficient mass of heavy steel. Here you can see what looks like a hole where the engine probably was and how the steel girders remain intact towards the ends of the wings, where the aluminum was insufficient to cut the steel girders.

    it is far from easy to fly a jetliner into a relatively small target like a building while moving at 500+ mph.

    I consider it preposterous that a “terrorist” flew the plane into the building. I’m convinced it was done by remote controlled, specially outfitted jets made to look like the commercial jets in the narrative

    A ROCKET

    That was one eye witness? There must have been thousands of New Yorkers or more and others in New Jersey and elsewhere who haven’t made that claim. Remember the women with the binoculars who saw the dancing Israelis, and called the authorities right away? Where are all the people like her who saw a r0cket?

    You must have come into this conversation late SP, because I’m one of the most tenacious 911 truthers around. I know that the fires didn’t bring down the buildings. I’m certain is was done by the Mossad and CIA and other elements at the top of the Israeli and US federal governments and media.

    My only contention is I suspect the ‘no plane’ theory is just too tenuous (incredible) to be believed by most people (myself included) and is therefor possibly used to put off otherwise skeptical people who might not trust the government’s account, but then consider the truther movement as too ‘out there’ when they hear the ‘no planes’ theories.

    the rocket or bomb would have had to cause damage like this

    and I just don’t see how that would be possible

    • Replies: @Sparkon
  299. @Boris

    “There is nothing vert unusual about the government’s behavior with regard to the scraps from the twin towers. They behaved as I would expect them to behave if they genuinely thought the towers were felled by planes and the resultant damage. How is the government supposed to foresee the conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11?”

    There are legal parameters that must be met for any crime scene. The debris [evidence] from TWA 800 was reconstructed and stored for 4 years during the NTSB investigation.

    “How is the government supposed to foresee the conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11?”

    You were asked a serious question, don’t be a smart ass. Those “scraps” were evidence from a crime scene.

    • Replies: @Boris
  300. L.K says:
    @Rurik

    Rurik:

    what I’d like to know is how the Israelis knew the attack was going to happen, and had cameras set up to “document the event”

    More on the 5 ‘dancing israelis’ from Bollyn:

    [...]A woman who had observed the jubilant Israelis said she was struck by the expressions on the men’s faces. “They were like happy, you know,” she said. “They didn’t look shocked to me. I thought it was very strange.” The story of the five men celebrating the destruction of the Twin Towers was dropped from the national news when it became known that they were not Arabs or Muslims from the Middle East, but Jews from Israel.
    The noteworthy fact that these men, who clearly had prior knowledge of the attacks, were in fact Israelis, and that they had been arrested at gunpoint with box cutter knives, multiple passports, and thousands of dollars in cash in a van that tested positive for explosives was only reported by Paolo Lima in a local New Jersey newspaper, the Bergen Record, the following day.
    [...]Months later, Forward, a well known New York-based Jewish newspaper, confirmed that Urban Moving Systems, the Weehawken, New Jersey-based “moving” company that the men worked for, was actually an Israeli intelligence front operation and that at least two of the men, evidently the Kurzberg brothers, were known agents of Mossad, Israel’s military intelligence agency.

    Dominic Suter, the Israeli “owner” of the company and a prime suspect, was somehow allowed to flee to Israel after the Federal Bureau of Investigation had initially interviewed him, but before they could interrogate him a second time. He has not been extradited to the United States since.

    After being held for 10 weeks, the five Israelis were sent back to Israel on visa violations.

  301. L.K says:
    @Rurik

    And let’s NOT forget about the Israeli instant messaging service Odigo!

    Israel-based employees of Odigo reported having received warnings of an imminent attack at the World Trade Center hours before the first plane hit the north tower. Odigo, an Israeli-owned company, had its U.S. headquarters two blocks from the World Trade Center, but the forewarned Odigo employees did not pass the terror warning on to the authorities in New York, an act that would have saved thousands of lives.

    Two weeks after 9-11, Alex Diamandis, Odigo’s vice president, said, “The messages said something big was going to happen in a certain amount of time, and it did – almost to the minute.”
    …4,000 Israelis were expected to have been working at the World Trade Center on 9-11, yet only one was reported to have died at the complex.

    It’s mind-boggling – but predictable given the media blackout – that almost nobody knows of these facts. Yet it is so.

    • Replies: @Rurik
  302. L.K says:
    @Rurik

    Oh, Rurik,

    War Criminal & Chieftain of the Zio Gangster State, Netanyahu, almost let the cat out of the bag in an interview, remember?

    On the day of the attacks, Netanyahu was interviewed by James Bennet of the New York Times:
    Asked tonight what the attack meant for relations between theUnited States and Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, the former prime minister, replied, “It’s very good.” Then he edited himself: “Well, it’s not good, but it will generate immediate sympathy.”

  303. Boris says:
    @Stonehands

    There are legal parameters that must be met for any crime scene.

    This is too general to be meaningful. What federal statues were broken?

    The debris [evidence] from TWA 800 was reconstructed and stored for 4 years during the NTSB investigation.

    So they should have stored all the scrap somewhere? That doesn’t sound reasonable to me.

    You were asked a serious question, don’t be a smart ass. Those “scraps” were evidence from a crime scene.

    Nobody was around pointing out all the super obvious CGI effects in the footage from that day. No one with with any credentials was claiming the towers couldn’t have fallen because of…impossibility. A reasonable investigator would be focused on the obvious cause—the airplanes and the hijackers.

  304. Steel was the structural material of the buildings. As such it was the most important evidence to preserve in order to puzzle out how the structures held up to the impacts and fires, but then disintegrated into rubble.

    “So they should have stored all the scrap somewhere? That doesn’t sound reasonable to me. ”

    Are you retarded? As I stated:
    The debris [evidence] from TWA 800 was reconstructed and stored for 4 years during the NTSB investigation.

    And cut the crap- its a great BIG country with lots of space and money for a proper investigation,
    not a 1 year, 3 million dollar rush job.

    CBC News: Sunday’s Evan Solomon interviews Lee Hamilton, 9/11 Commission co-chair and co-author of the book “Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission”.

    Solomon: In retrospect, one of the criticisms that you level in this book “Without Precedent” is aimed at both the FAA and NORAD, both of whom representatives testified before the Commission, and both of whom gave what to me – and I’m allowed to be much more impolite than you – sounded to me like lies. They told you testimony that simply… the tapes that were subsequently.. that have subsequently been revealed, were simply not true.

    Hamilton: That’s correct.

    Solomon: And it wasn’t just lies by ommission, in some senses lies of commission, they told you things that basically didn’t happen. What do you make of that?

    Hamilton: Well, I think you’re right. They gave us inaccurate information. We asked for a lot of material and a lot of documentation. They did not supply it all. They gave us a few things. We sent some staff into their headquarters. We identified a lot more documents and tapes, they eventually gave them to us, we had to issue a subpoena to get them.

    We are not a law enforcement agency,…So we punted – and we said, ‘we can’t do this, we don’t have the statutory authority, we don’t have the staff’, we don’t have the time’.

    • Replies: @Rurik
  305. If I were to guess at it, the coordinates would have to be set in advance. Like setting the nav system before flight or setting a simulator which is software controlled. Using simulator software in place of autopilot might maneuver the planes in the direction they went. Maybe they locked on to a signal or one of the systems was programmed to pick up a signal after flight. No one just flew those planes that way. It seems someone hooked those planes to a simulated drill.

  306. Erebus says:

    My only contention is I suspect the ‘no plane’ theory is just too tenuous (incredible) to be believed by most people (myself included) and is therefor possibly used to put off otherwise skeptical people who might not trust the government’s account, but then consider the truther movement as too ‘out there’ when they hear the ‘no planes’ theories.

    I hear ya on being a tenacious truther. Cheers.
    Since the event, I’ve been agnostic regarding the WTC planes/no planes debate. It simply didn’t matter much to me whether anything hit the towers or not, or what that something may have been if it did. The specifics of the collapse – symmetrical top down despite the assymetrical “damage”, the near free fall speed, the pulverization of some 400kT of concrete, the neatly cut columns, etc, etc – required orders of magnitude more energy than was available to the system in a natural collapse. That was enough for me, and by noon that day I knew a very big fix was in.

    Restricting ourselves to the WTC, and given that…
    - the towers were controlled demolitions, and
    - standard issue Boeings would have to be flown well outside their design envelope to do what they ostensibly did, (leaving aside the hijacking & airman skills required), and
    - only minute amounts of wreckage (of no provenance) were found

    …the question arises why have airplanes at all?

    After all, if you wanted to execute a spectacular terrorist attack involving the WTC, why not just drive 15-20 trucks loaded with high explosives, say 20T per truck, into the basements? Maybe have a few cruising the streets around the buildings and/or crash some into the main lobbies for extra drama?
    Security cameras would have recorded swarthy Middle Eastern drivers, their “names” would have been registered at security if they drove into the basements. Proper planning and execution would be an order of magnitude simpler, with a similarly reduced number of failure points. The towers could have been made to come down spectacularly, toppling unpredictably and taking swaths of downtown Manhattan with them – killing vastly more people, and creating vastly more damage. Perfect. The much simpler, more plausible and sale-able narrative would almost write itself.

    Instead, the perpetrators chose to jump the shark. Why? Why the planes? Why, on your hypothesis, go to the expense of acquiring and modifying jet airliners, creating innumerable potential failure points along the entire length and breadth of the operation? So many, I dare say, that the probability of success would be dramatically impaired even before you developed all the circumstances around “flight lessons”, “ticket buying”, “cell phone calls” and all the rest of it.

    My inability to answer those questions satisfactorily is what led me to believe that planes were not actually involved.
    The narrative, for whatever reason, had to include hijackings to get whatever effect was targeted.
    That leaves either pure CGI, or not-necessarily-armed missiles.
    The former, as noted by our true believers here, introduces too many uncontrolled points of failure. That’s why I’m kinda doubtful.
    Adding jet propelled cruise missiles of the many types used since the 2nd WW, seems plausible. There are literally 100s of 1000s of these things out there, of every vintage. When the USSR collapsed, the various ‘stans went into deep depression and all manner of armaments were being sold to whoever could pay for them. People, even ordinary American collectors were buying MiGs and Sukhois. Sub-sonic cruise missiles fly at the speeds and altitudes, and with the high accuracy, required for the job. They make the right kind of noise, and look sufficiently “airplane-ish” to fool anybody not looking directly at them. (Indeed, several eye-witnesses saw just that. )

    With that scenario, CGI as a means of cementing the narrative started to make some sense to me.
    Having said all that, I refer you back to the opening sentences. Whether, and of what type, airplanes were used changes little. They are dramatic effects, nothing more.

  307. What do truthers say about the Pentagon attack? Was that controlled demolition too?

    • Replies: @Rurik
  308. Erebus says:
    @Boris

    Even if wrongly you take this article’s view of “the north face” of WTC7 as the whole building, it still didn’t fall at free fall speed for the entire collapse

    You are right, of course, but trivially so. The fact is that the speed of a controlled demolition is set by the engineers running it. They may want it to go faster at some stages than at others, depending on what their demolition plan is. It can’t, obviously, fall faster than free-fall, but I suspect that it must be slowed in places to make certain that necessary events have taken place before the next stage begins.

    • Replies: @Erebus
    , @Boris
  309. Sparkon [AKA "SP"] says:
    @Rurik

    What really hurts the 911 Truth movement, in my opinion, is the refusal of some Truthers to account for all the evidence, or lack thereof, in formulating their theories, or working assumptions. One obvious big problem with the real planes theory is the lack of a debris field of airplane parts at any of the 9/11 crash locations.

    Consider for instance, Flight 93, which allegedly crashed near Shanksville, PA. There was no airplane debris of any kind at that location. We are supposed to believe that the soft ground simply swallowed up the aircraft– wings, fuselage, engines and all– without leaving any trace.

    Contrast this improbable scenario with, for example, the debris field left by MH17 after it crashed near Donetsk, Ukraine.

    Curiously, ACARS data analyzed by Pilots for 911 Truth shows that several minutes after its alleged crash, Flight 93 was still aloft in the vicinity of Champaign, IL, about 500 miles west of Shanksville, and about where a 757 would be if it took off from Newark, bound for San Francisco, CA.

    A similar problem exists for Flight 175, the 767 claimed to have crashed into WTC 2:

    ACARS Messages have been provided through the Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) which demonstrate that the aircraft received messages through ground stations located in Harrisburg, PA, and then later routed through a ground station in Pittsburgh, 20 minutes after the aircraft allegedly impacted the South Tower in New York.

    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/ACARS-CONFIRMED-911-AIRCRAFT-AIRBORNE-LONG-AFTER-CRASH.html

    Even more damaging to the theory that real planes hit the towers is the presence of obvious CGI effects on several of the videos from 9/11. In some of the videos, what appears to be a 767 is depicted slicing into the WTC without encountering any resistance from the building’s steel exterior walls.

    If a 767 really flew into that building, it would slow down in the microseconds after making initial contact, so that the wings, tail, and rear fuselage sections would be moving much more slowly as the impact progressed, but instead we see no de-acceleration whatsoever, which anomaly points to a graphic simulation, rather than a real event.

    In similar fashion, there is another video showing Flight 175′s fragile nose cone emerging from the opposite side of the building from impact, clearly an impossible feat.

    If a real 767 flew into WTC 2, there would be no need to create CGI of the crash. The presence of the CGI is a strong argument for the no-planes theory.

    Where are all the people like her who saw a r0cket? (sic)

    This is a classic apple to orange comparison. In the case of the Weehawken 5, AKA Dancing Israelis, their activity took place in a static location over the course of several minutes, at the very least, yet there was only this one gal who reported them, where a missile, rocket, or guided ordinance of any kind would have been aloft only for a few seconds if launched from the nearby Woolworth Building, and traveling at a high rate of speed.

    Do you just wave off the cop who saw the rocket as hallucinating?

    Note again the lack of specificity in most of the eyewitness accounts, but several reported seeing, or hearing a missile. Perhaps you couldn’t be bothered reading all of the accounts in utu’s comment #275, above.

    the rocket or bomb would have had to cause damage like this…and I just don’t see how that would be possible.

    Again, it has been reported upstream that so called “art students” from Israel had been occupying the very areas where both WTC impacts seemed to occur, and they were there for several years. I suggest, in that length of time, said students had the opportunity to attach explosives and/or incendiary devices to the parts of the facade where the missile was to be fired to correspond with the airplane’s outline. Note in your photo that some of the building’s structure appears to have been blown outward.

    Do you really think that the thin, mostly aluminum, and relatively fragile wing of a 767 could slice right through the dense steel exterior wall of WTC 2?

    Only in a cartoon.

    –sp–

    • Replies: @Rurik
  310. Erebus says:
    @Erebus

    I would also add that firemen reached the impact floors.
    In WTC2, their radio communication tapes reveal that the first team of firemen that got to the impact zone (78th Fl), made a professional assessment, noted the number and severity of the fires, and asked for more men with 2 lines (iirc) to “knock ‘em down”.
    The fires, in other words, were not serious, and they told their dispatcher that they were moving on to the 79th.
    I remember listening to the tapes that were posted, and they didn’t say anything about the floors being filled with burning, twisted aircraft wreckage, mangled bodies, or severely damaged central core. No 800C jet fuel fires scorched them. Nope, just sporadic fires from burning office furniture and paper that could be knocked down with “2 lines”.

    I would think the command centre would be interested in hearing about twisted airplane wreckage and 800C before sending more men in. No?

  311. Erebus says:

    It seems that my posts got screwed up.
    Not sure how that happened, I may just be screwing it up typing from a mobile.
    Anyhow, the reply to my reply to Boris should actually have been the reply to my reply to Rurik (@September 15, 2016 at 4:29 am GMT.)

    Sorry ‘boudat.

  312. @vinteuil

    Hi, Kermit.

    Every swivel-eyed, frothing-at-the-mouth loon in the vicinity vs. Boris.

    Strange, isn’t it? I thought that only a handful of crazy “conspiracy theorists” doubt the official story on 9/11, yet now apparently Boris here is practically alone.

    It’s really kind of awe-inspiring.

    Well, I can see why a mediocre shit eater such as yourself would be in awe of Boris. The man is great. He really is a champion shit eater. Did you see when I asked him to outline the proof of the official story and he said (among a couple of other irrelevant things) that Mohammed Atta had a plane ticket.


    How can you question that he hijacked a plane and flew it into a building???!!! The man had a plane ticket, dammit!! What more proof do you crazy “conspiracy theorists” need?

    I thought he could never surpass that, but then he did! He said there was no need to consider video fakery because it is so easy to fly a plane into a building!

    Look, you know what’s easier than faking 40-odd videos with CGI and paying/planting lots of witnesses and praying that no one squeals and hoping no one finds your planes and hoping that no one videotaped the non-plane crash, and dropping a bunch of airplane debris from…somewhere? It’s just crashing a plane into a building. That is so easy compared to your ludicrous scenario.

    That’s here: http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-how-the-cia-invented-conspiracy-theories/#comment-1567319

    You see, that’s why there are no stuntmen or special effects specialists in Hollywood. If you need somebody to fall off a tall building, say, you just pay somebody to jump off a tall building to his death. Why fake it when it’s just so easy to do for real?

    This is a true champion shit eater. It’s understandable that you don’t even try to compete, Kermit. You don’t have a chance when facing such competition. Maybe Boris will eventually be remembered as the GOAT, the greatest of all time!

    • Replies: @vinteuil
  313. @Erebus

    …the question arises why have airplanes at all?

    Well, the planes are in the narrative for entirely non-technical reasons, I’d say. Just for starters, the whole Ay-rab terrorists hijacking planes narrative has been prefigured endlessly in popular culture. A lot of people’s understanding of the world comes primarily from movies and TV shows. So they’ve been conditioned by all that to think that hijacking planes is something these people do.

    I think prefiguration is a big aspect of these things. Look at some of this stuff in Europe, like Charlie Hebdo. This whole plot line that Muslims are so utterly fanatical about cartoons, this was prefigured prior to the event, right? Of course, Muslims could get angry at various public personalities, like right-wing politicians or other public figures who are always shitting on their religion, and try to get revenge. There are plenty of people they could get angry at, right? Why the cartoonists specifically? I mean to say, the story was prefigured, right?

    Of course, the other aspect of this is the attack on civil liberties. They’ve got this no-fly list, and they can put you or me or anybody on this list and you have no recourse. You just won’t be allowed on a plane. If you live in Holland or Portugal, that’s one thing, but in a country the size of the USA, not being able to get on a plane basically means you no longer have freedom of movement really…. in your own country. You know, especially given the fact that US has not invested in high speed rail, air travel is really the only practical way to get around the country.

    And aside from that, in principle, if you can put people on a no-fly list with no real explanation, then you can extend it to a no-train, no-bus, no-car-rental list… why not?

    And even if you’re not on the no-fly list, they can put out the word and make sure that they harass you so much at the security checkpoints that you always miss your plane — unless you show up 3 hours or more before the flight! The whole planes thing ultimately gives them huge ability to harass people they don’t like, basically without the person having any recourse.

    Whether, and of what type, airplanes were used changes little. They are dramatic effects, nothing more.

    Yeah, that’s actually the most important point, of course.

  314. Rurik says:
    @L.K

    Hey L.K.,

    It’s mind-boggling – but predictable given the media blackout – that almost nobody knows of these facts. Yet it is so.

    there’s so much more too

    it’s wasn’t just Odigo that got an advance warning, other tenants with ties to Israel were also warned. Even Senator Al Franken wrote in his book that he got ‘the Jew call” telling him to avoid the area on that day.

    “To tell you the truth, I got the Jew call. I had an office in the Trade Center where I used to do most of my writing. The call came from former New York mayor Ed Koch. “Al,” he told me, “don’t go to work on the twenty-third day of Elul [September 11 – ed.].” (source)

    perhaps the most amazing thing about that isn’t that Jews and Israelis were warned, but that someone like Al Franken would admit such a thing.

    but it’s all just the tip of the iceberg. There were the ‘put’ options, there was president Bush sitting in that classroom for 20 minutes after everyone, (including the secret service and the president’s staff) knew our country was under attack. That one was huge for me. If our country was under a real attack on our soil by terrorists or anyone else, the president would have been whisked out of that room and into his limo and taken immediately to the presidential helicopter where he would have began barking orders to several different people demanding to know what was going on and giving authorization to shoot down jets in the air and having fighters all over the sea boards scrambled into the skies and dozens of other things a commander in chief would have been expected to do. Instead he sat there, with that idiotic ‘deer in the headlights’ look he’s so famous for. So what if the guy is dumb as a post, that doesn’t matter, the secret service would have taken control, and removed the president from danger if our nation was under a genuine terrorist attack from the skies. The president’s location was known and he could have been a target. But they did nothing. The president did nothing. At the very moment when his authority and leadership would have been most indispensable. When I read all about that and him sitting there in the class room reading about ‘My Pet Goat’, I smelled a rat.

    from there it’s just been one revelation after another. “Do the orders still stand”, and so on…

    • Replies: @Boris
  315. Rurik says:
    @Stonehands

    but then disintegrated into rubble.

    not just rubble, Stonehands, but into a find powder, a toxic dust

    at about half way through this video you see steel beams vaporizing into dust

  316. Rurik says:
    @Erebus

    The specifics of the collapse – symmetrical top down despite the assymetrical “damage”, the near free fall speed, the pulverization of some 400kT of concrete, the neatly cut columns, etc, etc – required orders of magnitude more energy than was available to the system in a natural collapse.

    the thick steel column in the center of the photo cut at a perfect 45% angle is a smoking gun that this was a controlled demolition

    steel doesn’t ‘break’ like that. Never.

    …the question arises why have airplanes at all?

    drama

    the dramatic videos with the explosions and people’s shock and horror- that they played relentlessly hour after hour, and day after day. With all the American people being forced to imagine their loved ones inside such a plane and being butchered so horrifically, all caught on camera. The psychological effect was the whole point. They wanted the American people to be roused to ferocious vengeance against these Muslims who would do such a thing to us.

    Consider a man like Pat Tillman, with a multi-million dollar signed contract to play pro football- would say ‘fuck that, I’m going to go kill those bastards!’. Would he have sacrificed all of that, and his life too, if the event was less spectacular? Perhaps so, but I suspect the planes and the relentless videos and the sheer horror of it all, were all carefully chosen for a carefully calculated effect. They no-doubt had psyops experts pouring over it all, and psychologists and all kinds of CIA and Mossad and intelligence cock suckers deciding how best to rouse the American people to war.

    Passenger jumbo jets with fireballs would likely beat out Arabs in trucks in the basement I suspect.

    There are literally 100s of 1000s of these things out there,

    for this event, I don’t think money was an object.

    when you’re planning a civilization ending cataclysm that will alter for all time the course of human history, and foment a war of civilizations between Islam vs. the West, you’re not going to worry about buying surplus weapons to get the job done. I just posted a link to a video of steel beams vaporizing in mid air. They probably used highly secretive and classified weapons we have no idea about to pull this thing off. Tiny tactical nukes or microwave something or other. Who knows, but this was an all or nothing affair. This was going to determine the kind of place the 21st century was going to be. Bloody and hellish and full to the brim with OT biblical types of tribal hatreds unleashed, like the last one, or relatively peaceful, which was how (to their chagrin and horror) it was looking to be like. As we’ve seen, trillions of dollars spent on the wars is money well spent from their (Satanic) perspective.

    And of course as you mentioned, all this minutia and the detail are really not that important. We know they (Israel and US neocons) pulled this off. And we know why. And we know who many of the perpetrators were. And we know that they caught Mossad agents “documenting the event”, and then they were allowed to quietly go home, (as local heroes and celebrities no doubt). And we know that the man who must have known about it all, and when asked about it, blurted out “it’s very good”, we know he can swagger into our capital building and publically berate our president for not starting enough wars for Israel, and our sniveling, treasonous congress will jump to their feet in thunderous standing ovations for the man who knew three thousand American citizens were going to be slaughtered on that day, and they all push and shove to be the first to lick the blood off his boots.

  317. Rurik says:
    @Stephen R. Diamond

    What do truthers say about the Pentagon attack? Was that controlled demolition too?

    you can always tell a shit eater by their giggly snark

    • Replies: @Stephen R. Diamond
  318. Boris says:
    @Erebus

    and by noon that day I knew a very big fix was in.

    You knew a fix was in four hours after the planes hit?

    Sounds like you rushed to judgment and confirmation bias took you the rest of the way.

    • Replies: @Erebus
  319. Boris says:
    @Erebus

    The fact is that the speed of a controlled demolition is set by the engineers running it.

    If there’s no way to distinguish between a non-demo collapse and a controlled demolition, then we are back to there being no evidence for a controlled demolition.

  320. Erebus says:
    @Boris

    Sounds like you rushed to judgment and confirmation bias took you the rest of the way.

    No, I have a solid grounding in the Gospels According to Isaac. The commonest of common sense.
    It happens I don’t believe in anything else.

  321. Boris says:
    @Rurik

    it’s wasn’t just Odigo that got an advance warning, other tenants with ties to Israel were also warned. Even Senator Al Franken wrote in his book that he got ‘the Jew call” telling him to avoid the area on that day.

    “To tell you the truth, I got the Jew call. I had an office in the Trade Center where I used to do most of my writing. The call came from former New York mayor Ed Koch. “Al,” he told me, “don’t go to work on the twenty-third day of Elul [September 11 – ed.].” (source)

    lololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololol!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Franken is making fun of you guys and you are so wrapped up in your delusions that you take his sarcasm as evidence. This is absolutely hilarious. Truthers never check their sources. They just mindlessly repeat things they read.

    The very next sentence of Franken’s book beings:

    Actually, I watched the events of that awful day from Minneapolis…

    I mean, you couldn’t embarrass yourself more if you were trying. Amazing.

  322. Rurik says:
    @Sparkon

    Consider for instance, Flight 93, which allegedly crashed near Shanksville, PA. There was no airplane debris of any kind at that location. We are supposed to believe that the soft ground simply swallowed up the aircraft– wings, fuselage, engines and all– without leaving any trace.

    Contrast this improbable scenario with, for example, the debris field left by MH17 after it crashed near Donetsk, Ukraine.

    there again SP, I have made that exact same comparison, when I too have pointed out that the plane crash in Shanksville is a lie. This is zero evidence of any plane crash, and the gorge in the ground where they exploded something in was already there. Also I’ve pointed out that the attack on the Pentagon was likely a missile, or otherwise where are all the throngs of videos that would have been the most surveilled real-estate perhaps on this continent.

    But all we get is a short video clip of the explosion. They’d had been better off showing us nothing. And where are all the ‘black boxes’? And why are the American people so God damn bovine that they don’t even care?!

    the aircraft received messages through ground stations located in Harrisburg, PA, and then later routed through a ground station in Pittsburgh, 20 minutes after the aircraft allegedly impacted the South Tower in New York

    it wasn’t commercial passenger jets that hit the towers. What happened to the real commercial planes and their passengers, (if there were any to begin with), is just another mystery.

    Even more damaging to the theory that real planes hit the towers is the presence of obvious CGI effects on several of the videos from 9/11.

    I’m convinced that the ‘no planes’ theory is a major psyops operation by now. I suspect that they’re doctoring all kinds of videos in order to “evaluate” them and “undoctor” them as if they’re honest and sincere truthers, I don’t know this, but there is no doubt that one of their major tactics is to try to denigrate the whole debate by painting truthers as some kind of nut-jobs. That’s clearly the tone of the whole ‘shit eater’ demeanor; to come across as if truthers, (a word already besmirched with “conspiracy theory’ connotations) are all tinfoil-hat-wearing kooks

    (isn’t that right shit eaters? ; )

    which anomaly points to a graphic simulation, rather than a real event.

    here’s a video that came out recently of building seven just as it was being brought down.

    it has been speculated that the video has been altered, and intended to discredit truthers by implying that the whole movement is being tricked by savvy computer geeks into believing something as absurd as our government “attacked itself on that day”. There are a lot of people who don’t want the truth really spreading, like it has in some parts of the world, where people take it all for granted that 911 was an inside job. If Americans ever feel that way, there could be hell to pay.

    Do you just wave off the cop who saw the rocket as hallucinating?

    no, but there were lots of conflicting accounts

    here’s a guy who insists that there were no rockets or planes or anything else that flew through the air, he insists it was simply a bomb.

    there are lots of people who insist that they saw a plane flying towards the Pentagon, and there are people of good will, like Michael Rivero (of WRH) who insist that these people are correct, and he dismisses all talk of a missile or bomb. I don’t doubt his motives or integrity, but there can be many different perspectives here who are searching in good faith for the truth, but are dealing with conflicting accounts. I suppose that’s natural with an event like that. Especially when we all know there are throngs and legions of disinformation experts at work in air conditioned rooms in Tel Aviv typing frantically their shit-eating snark as fast as they can to protect their ‘shitty little country’ from a righteous and well-deserved blowback of karma.

    Do you really think that the thin, mostly aluminum, and relatively fragile wing of a 767 could slice right through the dense steel exterior wall of WTC 2?

    Only in a cartoon.

    here’s the damage that was done

    do I think the jet could have caused damage like this? I would expect it to look more or less exactly like this. I don’t want to go down to your level of insult, by using expressions like ‘only in a cartoon’ but personally for me- to accept that they were able to carefully place charges to make it look like something (exactly like a jet plane) had hit the building from the exterior, and created the wing damage at the sides in exactly the same way a wing would have done had it struck from the outside, is rather silly, and indeed, preposterous.

    Look, we can agree to disagree on the particulars. Like I said, Mike Rivero seems stuck on the (fantastic and utterly discredited) notion that the passenger jet struck the Pentagon, and his cred is unassailable. So one of us could simply be mistaken, and I’m OK with that. So long as you’re genuinely interested in getting at the simple and honest truth.

    ~ Rurik

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  323. Ron Unz says:

    Well, I’m no expert on the topic, but here’s a question for all the No-Planes “conspiracy nuts” who are hanging around here…

    Over the years, I’ve gradually become aware of quite a number of credible or prominent people who publicly advocate various “9/11 Conspiracy Theories.” That’s one of the reasons I take such ideas seriously, even though I’ve never really investigated the matter. A critical mass of such individual advocates serves to overcome a validity threshold.

    Now with regard to the No-Planes hypothesis, can anyone provide me the one or two names of the most credible or prominent individuals who have publically endorsed it. If none exist, then I can’t see why I should pay any attention to it…

  324. alexander says:
    @L.K

    You make a thoughtful and cogent argument, L.K.

    Certainly the behavior of our government, POST 9-11, is most telling. Especially in its rapid jettisoning of all evidentiary material at the site of the attack.

    In a typical crime scene,(like after a murder) one does not EXPECT the lead investigator on the case, to be throwing out as much evidence he can, as fast as possible.

    Nor does one expect him to delay his FINAL report, until he has successfully “dumped” all that evidence , so it cannot be used.

    It is, indeed, a bizarre thing to contemplate.

  325. utu says:
    @Ron Unz

    “Now with regard to the No-Planes hypothesis, can anyone provide me the one or two names of the most credible or prominent individuals who have publically endorsed it. If none exist, then I can’t see why I should pay any attention to it…”

    Mr, Unz, why do you write your articles? Do you expect to change somebody’s mind? Last time I checked, you are not a prominent individual. Why do you expect somebody would pay attention to your opinions?

    You may be right about the no-planes theory but your argument is pathetic.

    • Replies: @Rurik
    , @Sam Shama
    , @Ron Unz
  326. Rurik says:
    @utu

    but your argument is pathetic.

    most people don’t have time for research into things like 911

    they rely (tragically) on the authorities and media to keep them informed

    I have an anecdote I’d like to share with you. I’ve been railing on about 911 now for about fifteen years. Some of the people who’ve been unfortunate to hear some of the things I’ve been saying have been my friends over the years. Now my last girlfriend used to hear me say things like Bush (the lesser) was a criminal and a traitor. Most of that went in one ear and out the other. But I wasn’t trying to convince her either, she would just hear me talking to other people. Then, one night there was a movie on the TV, Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 911, and it was absolutely amazing how her whole demeanor was in earnest. ‘OMG! you’ve been right about all the things you were saying about Bush!’

    None of it was true until she saw it on TV. Then it was all completely credible.

    Now I’m not going to pretend that she was in the same league as Mr. Unz when it came to interest in all things academic. But there are a lot of very smart people who don’t have the time or inclination to follow these issues exhaustively. Most people rely on the opinions of assorted experts, just as I have, only I’ve spent much more time doing so. Like the video of Danny Jowenko or the works of Kevin Barrett or Steven Jones or so many, many others.

    there are some people who we’ve all come to trust. Ron Paul for instance. Judge Napolitano, Jessie Ventura. People whose opinions matter to us, because they have credibility. What’s wrong with asking for the opinions of people you trust when you don’t have the time to research every “conspiracy theory” out there?

  327. @Ron Unz

    There are no prominent individuals who advocate for the ‘No-Planes’ hypothesis. Oh, sure, there are a few Ph.D’s who endorse the idea that no planes hit the WTC towers, but who cares?

    I’ve found many Ph.D. academics to be little more than dirty whores who will gladly hop into bed with ANYONE who has the cash.

  328. Sam J. says:
    @Boris

    For the lying Jew Boris who is trying in great desperation to bring up ANYTHING, by God anything at all, to confuse the issue. Here’s the video where they plot the trajectory of the building vs time. A little arithmetic gives you the speed of fall. I know most of you here know better already but I won’t them get away with any bullshit. Liars.

    WTC7 in Freefall: No Longer Controversial

    As for the imaginary rock. Yes we, or some of use do, know the speed of fall of rocks in air. The speed of fall of the building was the same.

    • Replies: @Boris
  329. alexander says:
    @Ron Unz

    Dear Mr. Unz,

    The basic fundamentals of the “reasoning” the Twin Towers were collapsed, not by the planes that struck it,but by some other force, are quite sound.

    So sound , in fact, I would not be surprised if spurious claims are often introduced on purpose, by proponents of the governments arguments (masquerading as Truther’s) such as CGI, to dilute and distract from an otherwise highly feasible premise.

    Perhaps the most feasible premise.

    This kind of propagandizing once injected into the tenets of the most well-argued thesis the buildings were “brought” down, not “struck” down, has the potent effect of “muddying the waters” of good thinking with “toxic” malarkey.

    These are the most effective ways I have witnessed ,to date, that best undermine a very credible concept, and spin the entirety of the argument into a contrived and “nutty” truther territory.

    Which I think is the whole point of it.

    Adding CGI to the roster does the greatest disservice, to the fact that we all witnessed building number seven collapsing ,completely within its own footprint ,without ever having even been struck by a plane.

  330. Sam J. says:

    The no planes theory, the ray beam theory, the mini nuke theory, all that is just bullshit. It’s just the “Spoofers” spreading lies and bullshit. It’s like when a gorilla throws dust in the air to confuse and excite things. In this case lets call it Jew dust. All the specifics that the Hasbara Jews are throwing out is Jew dust. They say you need to tell them this or that or the other. No you don’t. All you need to know is that building #7 fell as if only AIR held it up for roughly 108 feet. Now we all know the building didn’t vaporize into air on the bottom 10 or so floors. So it was demoed. There was no support. There is no other alternatives. The abnormal way that 1 and 2 fell seals the deal. The numerous massive amount of peripheral evidence just supports it further. The peripheral evidence if incorrect in no way weighs on the fact that 7 was blown up and if 7 was blown up then you know 1 and 2 were also. The Jews fucked up. You should all be deported.

    • Replies: @Boris
  331. Sam Shama says:
    @utu

    [ Last time I checked, you are not a prominent individual.]

    You are wrong – and I can’t imagine what I have to gain by writing this, other than not getting banned from the UR [ which is indeed a bit of an addiction :) ] for my many trespasses – but he is quite prominent and quite well known in serious policy circles and in academia. Plus he has a Wiki page. Try to get one yourself, and realise what that requires.

    More importantly, the thrust of what Ron said is valid. There are a great many very prominent and very patriotic Americans still around. Should one or more of these individuals weigh in on the “no planes theory” then the entire calculus will change.

  332. Rurik says:

    This is absolutely hilarious. Truthers never check their sources. They just mindlessly repeat things they read.

    Franken has never suggested he was being sarcastic. Perhaps he was, but he hasn’t clarified that after many people have taken him at his word.

    and considering that the Jerusalem Post mentioned on 9-12-2001 that there were approximately 4000 Israelis who were missing and believed to be working in or around the WTC on 911, it turns out that the high number for Israelis who died on 911 is five, and that’s the from an Israeli military site. Other sources say there was but one Israeli casualty.

    http://israelmilitary.blogspot.com/2011/09/how-many-jews-including-israelis-died.html

    Bush flat out lied when he said there were over a hundred Israelis that died. Why did he make a point of telling such an outrageous lie I wonder? Hmm

    according to this website (the numbers are not easy to find) there was but one Israeli casualty on 911

    http://www.sporcle.com/games/Hilarity/September11

    in a Jewish owned building in the middle of NYC – and the center of the financial capital of the world, one Israeli was there that day that perished, and I think they’re counting even that one as the Israeli guy that was known to be on one of the planes.

    so that means that fifteen times as many citizens of Trinidad and Tobago died in the towers as did Israelis, whom I suspect are generally overrepresented in financial centers of NYC.

    hmm

    • Replies: @Boris
  333. Boris says:
    @Sam J.

    For the lying Jew Boris

    Man, you Aryan supergeniuses keep getting this wrong. Shocking.

    WTC7 in Freefall: No Longer Controversial

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVCDpL4Ax7I

    What? Another supergenius error? This video was made before the final NIST report. He gets pretty much the same results they did. But he makes the same mistake The Saker and others have. The building’s interior began collapsing several seconds before the north face did. (BTW, he got an IMPOSSIBLE answer for the acceleration, so we can just dismiss it all, right?)

    As for the imaginary rock. Yes we, or some of use do, know the speed of fall of rocks in air. The speed of fall of the building was the same.

    The imaginary rock was used in a discussion of the twin towers, which came down at ~6m/sec`2.

  334. utu says:

    These are the option for planes-no planes theories:

    A. Let terrorists hijack planes and pray they find the WTC, they do not change their minds, they are not shot down by USAF.

    B. Hijack actual planes by remote control and hope you can guide them to WTC, your remote control is not taken over by pilots and that the planes are not shut down by USAF.

    C. Sent drone planes similar (C1) or not (C2) to actual airliners and pray you will not miss and the planes are not shot down by USAF.

    D. Send missiles and pray it will not miss.

    E. No planes, no missiles just explosions from planted charges.

    Keep in mind that lots of evidence already suggests that there was no plane in Pentagon.

    In options C2, D and E you need to generate CGI footage of planes hitting towers and control media so no alternative (true) footage is ever published. The control of media seems to be the hardest point sell for people who naively still believe that such a degree of control is not possible in the Land of the Free.

    The questions of eyewitnesses who actually did not see planes, I think, is totally irrelevant. What do you mean they did not see when every body saw them on TV? Perhaps they did not look correctly, they blinked their eyes in the wrong moment and if they still insists they did not see a plane they must be maniacs of conspiratorial theory type.

    In my opinion the option E is the lowest risk of failure. So I would vote for it if I were among the planners. Its biggest strengths is that I do not need a cooperation of US military elements in case if some would not want to cooperate or could not be fooled.

    If one decides to entertain the option E (or C or D) one must answer the question about what happened to the actual flights and passengers. Did they exist? Did they have to exist? What about traffic control?

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  335. Boris says:
    @Sam J.

    The no planes theory, the ray beam theory, the mini nuke theory, all that is just bullshit. It’s just the “Spoofers” spreading lies and bullshit.

    Oh, damn! He caught us, fellas. I tried to tell Jonathan he was pushing it too far. Ah, well, no one said controlling the world was gonna be easy.

    Never go in against an Aryan Supergenius when truth is on the line.

  336. @Ron Unz

    Now with regard to the No-Planes hypothesis, can anyone provide me the one or two names of the most credible or prominent individuals who have publically endorsed it.

    John Lear, the son of Bill Lear, the founder of Learjet, was already mentioned earlier. He swore out an affidavit that no Boeing airliners hit the buildings. That is here: http://www.activistpost.com/2012/03/911-affidavit-by-john-lear-son-of.html

    Of course, I lack the technical background to be able to judge for sure, but the basic arguments strike me as credible and the fact that he was willing to make these statements under oath. But most importantly, I have never found any rebuttal to what he is saying.

    Aside from John Lear, the most prominent no-planer that I know of would be Morgan Reynolds, who was chief economist in the Department of Labor under GW Bush. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgan_Reynolds

    You can see various presentations online:

    https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=morgan+reynolds+no+planes+on+9%2F11

    My reaction to the no-planes hypothesis was approximately the same as yours initially. However, I have thought about it over the last couple of years, and increasingly, tending towards that view. I have not seen any rebuttal to what Morgan Reynolds is saying, unless you count just fact-free sneering derision.

    Note that I am not absolutely certain. However, I can say that I cannot prove to myself that any planes hit any buildings.

    As hard as it is to get one’s head around, a plan that does not involve getting any planes to hit any buildings is a plan with a lot fewer points of failure than a plan that simply involves using video fakery to convince people that these plane crashes occurred.

    If none exist, then I can’t see why I should pay any attention to it…

    Well, you seem to be saying that planes DID hit the buildings because no “prominent” individual says that planes DID NOT hit the buildings. If you think that is satisfactory proof, that is your own business, I guess.

    But these kinds of inherently very weak a priori sorts of arguments are not very convincing. I’d be interested in some sort of argument that actually engages with what Lear and Reynolds and some others are actually saying and trying to rebut it logically and factually.

    If you can come up with a better argument for why I should believe that planes hit buildings, I actually am VERY interested in that! Actually, if you can’t come up with a better argument (as I suspect) that is interesting too! Of course, in that case, you should refrain from referring to such people as “conspiracy nuts”. Though I think you should refrain from that anyway, since it kind of contradicts the overall tenor of what you’ve been saying in your recent writing!

  337. @utu

    In my opinion the option E is the lowest risk of failure. So I would vote for it if I were among the planners.

    My reasoning is about identical to yours.

    If one decides to entertain the option E (or C or D) one must answer the question about what happened to the actual flights and passengers. Did they exist? Did they have to exist?

    I don’t think they had to exist at all. I would suppose that the whole plane hijackings story is a complete 100% hoax. The flights in question did not even occur. It seems like the victims may be mostly fake. At least the ones who allegedly died on the hijacked flights. This is worth considering:

    http://www.septemberclues.info/vicsims_photo-analyses.shtml

    What I don’t understand is why the mainstream of the 9/11 Truth community ignores this work. If it’s crap, they should at least debunk it, no?

    • Replies: @utu
  338. @Rurik

    What happened to the real commercial planes and their passengers, (if there were any to begin with), is just another mystery.

    I’m increasingly certain that the hijacking part of the story is just 100% hoax. The flights never even took place.

    One aspect of the various drills taking place on the same day was that they had the capability to put phony blips on the screens of the air traffic controllers. You know, for drill/training purposes.

    So, most likely, it’s just something originally conceived as an emergency readiness drill scenario, say, where it is represented that some planes took off and then were hijacked. Then they say the drill was a real hijacking!

    Anyway, this is another aspect of the whole thing that is very under-analyzed in the truth community, the conjunction of all these drills and the actual event. The chance of this actually being a genuine coincidence is very very very low. So it must be something like what I say above, IMO. What are the odds that they construct some drill involving multiple hijackings and real terrorists decide to do exactly that. AND they decide to do it the same day that they are running the drill! How gullible does somebody really have to be to believe this is a coincidence?!

    I’m convinced that the ‘no planes’ theory is a major psyops operation by now

    I am honestly not certain. Maybe “yes planes” is the psyops operation!

    Seriously, I dunno. No planes versus yes planes may just be an honest, good-faithed disagreement. For me, what is obviously a total psyop is this “28 pages” bullshit! Things like that…

    In general, one thing the Saker did not mention was that there is a huge amount of rancor and infighting in the 9/11 Truth community. I would have to assume that the various groups are totally infiltrated by Deep State agents. Probably most of the conflict is socially engineered somehow or other by Deep State agent provocateur types.

    Of course, if we (you, me, Erebus, Alexander, utu…) that no Boeing passenger jet was flown into a building, it doesn’t really matter very much whether what we saw was a remote-control drone or just pure CGI. A real, serious investigation of the crime would investigate these things basically.

    • Replies: @Rurik
  339. alexander says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    Jonathan,

    If I might intercede for a moment.

    If one was going to CGI two planes ramming into the twin towers, why not make the extra “low risk” effort, to have the third plane ram into building number seven ?

    If its so darn simple and expedient to fabricate, then why not be thorough about it ?

    Where is the motive to “muff it” on number seven ?

    • Replies: @Erebus
  340. @Jonathan Revusky

    As hard as it is to get one’s head around, a plan that does not involve getting any planes to hit any buildings is a plan with a lot fewer points of failure than a plan that simply involves using video fakery to convince people that these plane crashes occurred.

    I misspoke here. I was tired. I meant that a plan that did not involve getting planes to hit buildings, i.e. just uses video fakery, has fewer points of failure than one that really requires planes to hit buildings.

    This is the point utu makes separately and I actually think it is a very strong argument.

  341. Erebus says:
    @Ron Unz

    …can anyone provide me the one or two names of the most credible or prominent individuals who have publically endorsed it.

    Well, does Morgan Reynolds count as “prominent” enough? He was proclaiming his no plane theory to anyone who would listen a few years ago.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  342. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Groovy Battle for Blair Mountain"] says:

    Well…to sum it all up:

    1)The Muzzies did 9/11…

    2) And the Muzzies will be enthusiastically voting The Historic Native Born White American Majority into violently persecuted racial minority on Nov 8 2016…And this is the only reason why the Muzzies are being imported into the US..And you can say the exact same thing about all the other nonwhite Democratic Party Voting Blocs…for there was, and is, no economic justification for importing them…for there is no economic case for race-replacing The Historic Native Born White American Majority

  343. Erebus says:
    @alexander

    Where is the motive to “muff it” on number seven ?

    Two possibilities, both involving a failure of the demolition crew:
    1. The entry hole blasts failed to go off, for whatever reason, giving the CGI crew no target to cue their “aircraft”. In order to put a fake plane into the building, you need an exploding entry hole. No hole, and the plane slides into the building without a trace. That looks weird, even on TV.
    2. More likely, it was never intended to get a plane, but to be brought down in the melee shortly after the 2 towers collapsed. In the dust and smoke, no-one would have noticed. For whatever reason, the demolition sequence was scrubbed, and it took 8 hrs to diagnose / repair whatever went wrong.

    • Replies: @Rurik
  344. Ron Unz says:
    @utu

    Mr, Unz, why do you write your articles? Do you expect to change somebody’s mind? Last time I checked, you are not a prominent individual. Why do you expect somebody would pay attention to your opinions?

    You may be right about the no-planes theory but your argument is pathetic.

    Well, leaving aside the question of whether I’m myself a “credible” or “prominent” individual, surely you’ve noticed that all my “American Pravda” articles are almost entirely based on the external research conclusions of others, who clearly do fall into those categories. As an extreme example, Syd Schanberg was generally regarded as one of the greatest journalists of his generation, he specialized in Vietnam War issues, and he spent a couple of decades working on his POW research, so that’s one of the main reasons I take the theory seriously. And in my most recent column, the book I discussed was published by Prof. Lance deHaven-Smith, former president of the Florida Political Science Association, who seems a reasonably credible individual to me on the history of those ideological changes he analyzes.

    Consider that there are an infinitude of possible “non-orthodox” theories, and I really don’t have the time to investigate them all. Suppose some random commenter appears and claims that Uruguay doesn’t really exist—it’s just a hoax. Well, I’ve never been to Uruguay, so how can I be sure? But I certainly won’t waste any time on the idea unless he can persuade at least one person I take seriously that his theory is probably correct.

    • Replies: @utu
  345. Ron Unz says:
    @Erebus

    Well, does Morgan Reynolds count as “prominent” enough? He was proclaiming his no plane theory to anyone who would listen a few years ago.

    Actually, no. I’d never heard of the fellow and I doubt that almost anyone else ever had except that he’s supposedly an advocate of the No-Planes theory. So his only prominence comes from his extreme unorthodoxy. Same for that John Lear fellow cited upthread.

    With regard to “mainstream 9/11 conspiracy theories,” I’ve gradually discovered that there are something like 8-10 reasonably prominent/credible people I’m familiar with for *other* reasons who believe in those theories, so I’ve started to pay a little attention to the topic for that reason. Also, there’s that 9/11 Truth organization supposedly containing thousands of architects and engineers, which provides some additional credibility.

    But upthread somebody mentioned that virtually none of those 9/11 Truthers accept the No-Planes hypothesis, which in my mind reinforces the presumption that it’s just total nonsense. So why don’t the No Planes people go and first try to win over some of the prominent 9/11 Truthers before bothering others with their seemingly far-fetched ideas.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  346. utu says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    “What I don’t understand is why the mainstream of the 9/11 Truth community ignores this work.” – I have spent several hours watching videos produced by this guy and reading his texts after you linked him here. His video analysis is sometimes sloppy and sometimes, in my opinion, even deceptive. His hypothesis of no victims is certainly elegant in its simplicity. I think a young person, a mathematician/computer programmer with a hint of Asperger would really like it. But the world is more complicated, messy and not very elegant. Usually it’s a mixture of mud, shit and blood and you can’t escape this reality by postulating a clean aseptic one. Often it requires heuristic approach to explain it. A piece of paper and a pencil or a computer program are not enough. I am open minded and am often willing (unlike Ron Unz) to consider really very weird hypotheses. Sometimes I worry that I am way too open minded but the common sense that I still have left tells me that what Simon Shack proposes is nonsense. Why does he do it? Is it because it does not matter for him. Is it just a theoretical exercise for him? A joke? Does he want to sabotage and undermine everything that he came up with? Including the no planes hypothesis? Basically he postulates that everything we saw was CGI. Including the footage of collapse and debris and the surrounding buildings? He postulates no victims in the WTC as the buildings were evacuated and demolitions were performed w/o witnesses and w/o cameras behind the veil of smoke. How could you even prove it? Perhaps Simon Shack took the movie Matrix too literally. The eternal dream of mind over matter or software over hardware.

    • Replies: @Rurik
    , @Jonathan Revusky
  347. Boris says:
    @Rurik

    Franken has never suggested he was being sarcastic. Perhaps he was, but he hasn’t clarified that after many people have taken him at his word.

    Many people? It’s a few idiots on the internet. It’s obvious to everyone else that a well known comedian and satirist is writing satire.

    http://www.sporcle.com/games/Hilarity/September11

    That is a game that someone created, not a source. Wikipedia says 5 Israelis died. As does this article:

    http://www.jpost.com/International/US-Ambassador-Israel-stood-by-US-in-darkest-hour

    In addition, some dual citizens may have been listed under the US victims.

    In any case, the percentage of Jewish victims of 9/11 looks to be what one would expect if there was no forewarning:

    This 10-15% estimate of Jewish fatalities tracks closely with the percentage of Jews living in the New York area.

    http://www.snopes.com/rumors/israel.asp

    Once again, you are bad at research, bad at reading and probably bad at everything else.

    • Replies: @Rurik
  348. Rurik says:
    @Erebus

    1. The entry hole blasts failed to go off,

    I just checked out JR’s Morgan Reynolds film, and while I agree with him on the Pentagon and Shanksville, I still don’t buy the ‘no planes’ theory regarding the towers, even tho he does provide video where it looks fake.

    nevertheless the video itself is all over the place. Sometimes there’s no plane at all, and then sometimes it’s a quiet, steath type plane. He’s quite inconsistent.

    But I’ve been giving this some thought, and while I believe you guys are all acting in good faith, I still can’t get passed the holes.

    you can easily see that something with massive energy forced the beams in, not out

    the only beam that looks like it’s pointing out was clearly forced in below and it simply sheared and came out on top due to the force below.

    consider that the explosions (blasting outwards) we all saw would have forced the materials to blow out, away from the building, but clearly, they are bent inwards (against the force of the blast).

    so how would you make an exploding entrance hole if you’re presumably doing so from the inside of the building, that would make all those very substantial beams bend outward, (but instead they bend inward)?

    since the damage to the towers in the pictures and the behavior of the plane itself upon impact is likely more significant than what a typical passenger jet would cause, then I’d just put that down to these were not typical passenger jets. But specially built planes specifically for this purpose.

    and that would account for the holes, and the mysterious lack of sound and the black colors the witnesses saw of the plane they say they saw that hit the second tower.

    CGI would easily account for the fake looking videos after the fact

    • Replies: @Erebus
  349. Rurik says:
    @utu

    His video analysis is sometimes sloppy and sometimes, in my opinion, even deceptive

    I found the soda can firing into the solid steel insulting

    just like his hitting the sledge hammer with a piece of aluminum pipe

    and many of the animations were less than pathetic

    • Replies: @utu
  350. utu says:
    @Ron Unz

    “Suppose some random commenter appears and claims that Uruguay doesn’t really exist—it’s just a hoax.” – I always liked solving mathematical puzzles that consisted of erroneous proofs. It was a challenge to find where is a false step taken that leads to the absurd conclusion, say, 1=2. For this reason I might be interested to check the reasoning, if there is some, behind the claim that Uruguay does not exist and how we were fooled into believing that it did and does exist. But obviously I do it only if I have time. BTW, in last year I have noticed lots of Flat Earth videos on youtube that started popping up in my searches. I haven’t looked into their arguments yet but I wonder if they are part of some concerted effort to ridicule somewhat less ridiculous conspiracy theories.

    I do understand the pragmatism of your approach that you do not want to waste time on investigation unless somebody who you have evidence that does not have a marsh mallow for a brain support the investigation. It could be a friend and yes it can be a prominent individual. Somehow the word prominent rubs me the wrong way, perhaps because I met some seemingly prominent people with marsh mallow for a brain.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  351. Rurik says:
    @Boris

    the percentage of Jewish victims

    I wasn’t talking about Jews (idiot)

    I was talking about Israelis

    you know, like the Israelis that were filming the attack to “document the event”?

    the Israelis who said of the attack “it’s very good”

    those Israelis (fool)

    I leave it up to the reader to ponder if there would likely have been approximately five working in or around the WTC on that day

    ~ or, if they had warned each other and let the rest of the Americans (including hundreds of Jews) get horrifically slaughtered

    • Replies: @Boris
  352. Sparkon [AKA "SP"] says:

    The most important objective of 9/11 Truth is–or should be–bringing the guilty parties to justice.

    The actions–or inactions–and subsequent statements of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and Myers are sufficient grounds, I would think, to arouse the suspicion of federal prosecutors, law enforcement, and congressional watchdogs, but as we’ve seen, there’s been no legal action against any of them, at least in the USA.

    ‘Dangerous work, and who wants to do it?

    But consider: when informed by COS Andrew Card that “America is under attack,” President of the United States George W. Bush just sat there, as if he had not a care in the world. The Commander in Chief didn’t lift a finger to defend the nation.

    Meanwhile, in the back of that classroom, Press Secretary Ari Fleisher maneuvered around, and held up a hand-written sign for Bush:

    “Don’t say anything yet.”

    Of course, there’s nothing suspicious about any of this. Isn’t this exactly how we would expect our CIC and his top people to behave while the nation was under attack?

    ‘Nothing to see here; move along.

    Now, it is interesting to note the various arguments here against the NPT, so let’s just set the record straight: Nothing about the NPT precludes agreement with the fact that the WTC buildings 1, 2 & 7 were destroyed by controlled demolitions.

    And as I’ve said above, in the overall scheme of things, it doesn’t really matter whether or not there were commercial jetliners crashed into the WTC because the commercial airplanes were not the agents of the WTC’s destruction.

    When WTC 7 fell, it looked like a classic controlled demolition. By contrast, WTC 1 & 2 were destroyed by some kind of exotic, extremely powerful force that caused the massive towers to disintegrate and turn to dust, even as they fell. We have no precedent for this kind of controlled demolition, so it leaves me scratching my head a bit, but in the final analysis, it is really not necessary to understand exactly how it was done in order to know that neither the planes and their fuel, nor the fires, nor both together, could have devastated those huge towers in that fashion.

    I suggest that there is an emotional if not hysterical reaction against the NPT because the Magic Television has important utility far beyond 9/11 to TPTB. As Richard Nixon once said: “The American people don’t believe anything until they see it on television.” The perpetrators of 9/11 fooled many people with a televised magic show on Black Tuesday, and they or their cohorts may want to do it again in the future with something else, so the credibility of the TV must be defended.

    If you saw it on TV, it must be true.

    However, the NPT does not rely on CGI on TV as its only indication. There is the NCARS data for Flt. 93 and 175, showing both planes still aloft and far from Shanksville, and NYC after the times of their alleged crashes. There are the assertions from pilots that the 767 can’t be flown like that for aerodynamic, mechanical, and structural reasons. There is the irrefutable fact that the hollow aluminum tube that is the 767′s fuselage could not penetrate the dense steel matrix that made up the exterior wall of WTC 1 & 2, and would have instead sloughed off the building’s facade, and fallen in flames to the street below. There is data indicating that Flights 11 and 77 were not even scheduled on 9/11, and further information that Flights 93 and 175 were not deregistered until 9/28/2005. Finally, there is no incontrovertible evidence of 757 or 767 plane wreckage at any of the alleged 9/11 crash sites.

    And so, despite what some here would have you believe, NPT does not in any way rule out or exclude controlled demolition as the cause of the destruction of the WTC buildings, nor does it rely solely on evidence of CGI to theorize that there were no planes.

    You may think Mr. Mustardseed did it with the candlestick in the library, while I think he used the lead pipe, but we shouldn’t let our differences of opinion about the murder weapon obscure our agreement that a crime has been committed, or that we would all like to see justice served.

    Again, bottom line: by far the most important objective for 9/11 Truth is to identify and bring to justice the criminals responsible for 9/11, and get them under oath in front of an honest judge.

    –sp–

    • Replies: @utu
    , @Rurik
  353. JG says:
    @Alfa158

    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.

    • Replies: @Rurik
  354. Sam J. says:

    “…So why don’t the No Planes people go and first try to win over some of the prominent 9/11 Truthers before bothering others with their seemingly far-fetched ideas…”

    Because they’re just spreading Jew dust to confuse the issue.

    As for Boris, “the spider I bet”, the inside of the building falling first is even more evidence that it was a planned explosion. The quality of Hasbara has been going down a great deal. They must be scraping the bottom of the barrel.

    The Spoofers lie.

    • Replies: @Boris
  355. utu says:
    @Rurik

    “I found the soda can firing into the solid steel insulting” – I think it was Ace Baker. I did not see it in Simon Shack. Both of these guys like to sing.

  356. utu says:
    @Sparkon

    “Nothing about the NPT precludes agreement with the fact that the WTC buildings 1, 2 & 7 were destroyed by controlled demolitions.” – Actually real plane or missile impact would have been detrimental to the wiring and distribution of the demolition charges.

  357. Who knew what, and when? This especially applies to officials of the US and foreign governments.

    Which evidence has been ignored, kept secret, or even destroyed?

    http://www.lobster-magazine.co.uk/free/lobster72/lob72-fifteen-years-9-11.pdf

  358. @Ron Unz

    Morgan Reynolds

    I’d never heard of the fellow

    I don’t know how to respond to this, because I am painfully aware that this is a bit silly. The overarching point, of course, is that the guy’s arguments are correct or not independently of whether you had previously heard of him.

    But besides… it occurs to me that there are all kinds of prominent people in their fields that I probably never heard of. In the computer field, some guy like Bill Joy is prominent, no? Or Richard M. Stallman? But if you were not in the computer field at all, would those names ring a bell? I mean, some guy could literally be like a God in some technical field, and you and I would not recognize the person’s name. Who is the Bill Joy of automotive engineering? I dunno…

    John Lear is a famous aviator, held a lot of aviation records that stood a long time. I’m not sure whether I ever heard of him before looking into the business of the planes on 9/11. But if I was a plane nerd, I would have heard of him, I’m pretty sure.

    In any case, there is a whole problem with this of potentially “shifting the goalposts” when there isn’t a clearcut definition of who is “prominent” or not.

    With regard to “mainstream 9/11 conspiracy theories,” I’ve gradually discovered that there are something like 8-10 reasonably prominent/credible people I’m familiar with for *other* reasons who believe in those theories, so I’ve started to pay a little attention to the topic for that reason.

    Ron, first of all, the epistemology you are outlining — relying on “prominent/credible” people to bring these matters to your attention — has not actually been very effective for you, at least regarding what I call “deep events”.

    The JFK assassination is a quintessential deep event and you openly admitted that you had believed the official story for most of your life. So, whatever your methodology or epistemology was for getting at the truth about something like that, it utterly failed you.

    Now, you say regarding another quintessential deep event, 9/11, “I’ve started to pay a little attention to the topic…” Well, Ron, it’s been 15 years, and based on this synthetic event, they have perpetrated an arc of destruction across a big swathe of the globe. While you weren’t paying attention….

    Now, I have no doubt that your IQ is extremely high. That, and you are a polymath with high levels of knowledge about diverse fields.

    BUT… what that necessarily, inescapably implies, is that people of far lesser intellectual gifts realized the truth about these deep events long before you did. This, in turn, implies that there is likely some problem with your basic epistemological approach.

    Yet, strangely (at least from my point of view) rather than humbly trying to figure out the flaws in your methodology that led you astray on these key topics like JFK and 9/11 for so long, you are here, rather pompously outlining your “methodology” that failed you in these cases, along with frankly silly arguments, such as speculation about whether Uruguay really exists.

    Ron, I don’t think the “does Uruguay really exist” rhetoric supports your case. Simple conceptual experiment: Imagine it is well understood that any mention of Uruguay will get you smeared as a “conspiracy theorist” and they will your destroy your career. “We can’t publish Paul Craig Roberts. The guy’s has gone nuts. He’s a Uruguay affirmer.

    Under those conditions, how many “prominent” people would ever mention Uruguay? Moreover, the “prominent” person who does affirm the existence of Uruguay does not remain prominent for very long!

    In such a world, maybe you could live happily into middle age without realizing that there really is this country, Uruguay, sitting there in between Argentina and Brazil!

    In any case, Uruguay would continue to exist even if all the “prominent” people ceased to ever mention it. And planes either crashed into the buildings or they didn’t. Whatever is the truth about this is the truth, independently of whether anybody who meets your definition of “prominent” says so or not.

    You see, Ron, you’re making an overall argument that would make sense in another context. For example, if some real crazies were saying that smoking cigarettes is good for you, I guess it would make sense to pose the question: “Can you name a prominent/credible person in the medical field who makes this claim?”

    Even though that makes sense, it is hardly that strong an argument. A much stronger argument would be something like looking at public health statistics and comparing how many smokers versus non-smokers die of cancer and so forth. I assume the statistics on this are pretty devastating and show that smoking is bad for you. I mean to say, an actual fact-based argument is going to be much stronger than an “appeal to authority” argument where you say that no “prominent” people say this so it can’t be true.

    BUT… when it comes to a deep event like JFK or 9/11, your “prominent people” argument really looks pretty damned worthless to me. In the cigarette smoking example, if you have a pretty much unanimous scientific consensus that cigarettes are bad for you, that consensus is very likely to be correct, and formed by honest, qualified people. In terms of a deep event like JFK or 9/11, this kind of reasoning is not going to work generally. “Prominent” people are under huge pressure to dissimulate about this.

    In fact, as I said above, and it bears repeating: This methodology, regarding deep events, does not seem to have worked very well for you in the past.

    • Replies: @Rurik
  359. @utu

    “Suppose some random commenter appears and claims that Uruguay doesn’t really exist—it’s just a hoax.” – I always liked solving mathematical puzzles that consisted of erroneous proofs. It was a challenge to find where is a false step taken that leads to the absurd conclusion, say, 1=2.

    Well, this is the issue for me with the no-planes hypothesis. I have tried to convince myself that it is untrue. I have looked for the “false step” in the reasoning. And I have failed to find it.

    Also, the various a priori sorts of reasoning that Ron Unz has outlined, all of this already occurred to me, but, as I (and you) have pointed out, these are actually very very weak arguments.

    IOW, based on the publicly available information, I cannot prove to myself that any planes hit any buildings on 9/11. Moreover, I am quite convinced that certainly no big Boeing passenger jets did!

    Meanwhile, all of the logistical advantages of NOT crashing planes that you yourself have outlined all keep occurring to me and finally, I tend strongly towards the theory that the whole airplanes aspect of what happened on that day is illusory.

    BTW, in last year I have noticed lots of Flat Earth videos on youtube that started popping up in my searches.

    Uh, yeah, I’ve noticed that too. I think it’s obviously a deliberate psy op thing. If you find a 9/11 truth video, the other “related” videos could be this ridiculous garbage flight “flat earth”. The idea is to encourage people to make those mental associations.

    Somehow the word prominent rubs me the wrong way,

    Uhh, yeah, I feel I’m being put in a somewhat difficult position. The argument is indeed extremely weak and it must be countered, but I don’t want to come across as disrespectful in demolishing it.

    A key problem with it that I didn’t even mention much was that people being “prominent” in our society is largely a function of who the media promotes. In turn, the media mostly promotes people who are willing to toe the line on certain key issues.

    And when I say the media, I don’t just mean the MSM, but also the “alternative media”,… the “controlled opposition”…

    So the fact that nobody prominent, i.e. promoted by the media says X means X must not be worth considering — this is a very bad argument when it comes to deep events like JFK or 9/11. In fact, the opposite argument might be more valid. Nobody who is “prominent” can be expected to tell the truth about any of these things. Or sometimes, but it’s very rare. How many people like Paul Craig Roberts are there?

    Maybe, on a deep event, if too many “prominent” people are saying something, it’s more rather than less likely to be disinfo!

    Waiting for some “prominent” person to tell you something just doesn’t cut it.

  360. @utu

    Sometimes I worry that I am way too open minded but the common sense that I still have left tells me that what Simon Shack proposes is nonsense. (snip) Basically he postulates that everything we saw was CGI.

    Okay, but look at it this way. As a methodological approach, let’s say you take the Simon Shack approach, which is that EVERYTHING that we see is fake and the onus of proof is to demonstrate that any given thing is real. But again, the “default assumption” is that any specific thing is fake, CGI etcetera.

    The alternative methodology is to assume that everything that we are shown is real and then the onus is on anybody to demonstrate that a given thing is fake.

    Now, if you had to analyze a magic show, which of the two methodologies is more promising? I mean, when you know in advance that what you are about to see is a carefully constructed illusion, should you assume by default that the things you see are real, or should the baseline assumption be that everything you see is false until proven otherwise?

    So getting back to the planes, many people are arguing that the default assumption is that planes did crash into buildings and the onus is on us to prove otherwise. Well… maybe the default assumption should be that the plane crashing video is faked and then the onus is on the other side of the debate to prove that the plane crashes really occurred!

    My contention is that if you do that, it looks pretty difficult, nigh impossible, to prove to oneself that any planes really did crash into buildings!

    As for everything being fake, well, I doubt it too, but it could be a useful baseline assumption to start with if you want to get at the truth, i.e. we’ll assume everything is fake and then go from there.

    What I currently suspect is that the 9/11 event is best understood as two separate operations.

    1. The plane hijacking story.
    2. The demolition of the buildings.

    These are two separate synthetic events that were merged into a single synthetic narrative — this utterly fantastical overall story that led us into all these wars and so on.

    So when you deconstruct it like this, I think certain things become fairly clear:

    The plane hijacking story is a complete and utter hoax. Or at least, I am strongly tending towards that view. The flights did not even take place.

    A key to understanding how that was pulled off is surely the drills that were taking place at the same time. A drill specifically is a simulation. The whole hijacking thing was a simulation. The patsies in the flight schools is also just a complete imposture. I mean, total imposture, like when you see a story that some guy who was born in France and grew up there and can’t speak English goes to the USA to learn how to a fly a plane…. just among other things… I mentioned this here: http://www.unz.com/tsaker/the-911-truth-movement-15-years-later-where-do-we-stand/#comment-1567202

    BUT…. on the other hand, the building demolitions obviously really do have to take place! The buildings really did implode and that was pretty messy, and when you do that, there are going to be real victims!

    But once you deconstruct the whole thing into two components, you see that they are two separate things. There is no corresponding need to really hijack planes or have any real planes at all! You simply need to successfully plant in the public’s mind that there were hijacked planes that really did fly into buildings.

    Getting back to Simon Shack, I haven’t been aware of his work for very long. My sense of things is that his arguments for the planes part being a 100% hoax are probably on the right track.And that is the part of what he is saying that I have focused on. Likewise with Morgan Reynolds and Ace Baker and so on. None of these people are professional investigators with the resources that an official investigation would have. They’re concerend citizens doing this on their own time and dime. So I think that these accusations that these people are “sloppy” or “amateurish” is possibly unfair….

    Now, the AE911Truth material is much more polished and professional, yes. But note that these people pretty much completely restrict themselves to focusing on the building demolition side, arguing that the buildings were blown up in controlled demolition.

    OTOH, you have Pilots for 9/11 Truth, John Lear and the rest, focusing on the aviation side of the story, telling you that this is a total hoax. This brings to mind the parable of the blind men groping at an elephant.

    Maybe, properly understood, the two groups are actually analyzing two separate things anyway. The architects and engineers are analyzing the building demolition side. The Pilots are analyzing the plane hijacking story. That AE911Truth just assumes that planes were hijacked, in a way, this is not too hard to understand, because they’re focus is on the building implosions…

    Anyway, I hope you see my overall point.

    • Replies: @utu
    , @alexander
  361. Sam J. says:

    Boris “the Spider” again says that the inner collapsed before the outer. I say “so what”. If the inner collapsed before the outer then it wasn’t attached to the outer at all was it? How can the inner fall without pulling on the outer? It can’t unless it was unattached. You see the glass on the building mostly not broken. You think if “fires” caused enough heat to remove support from the inner from the outer that the windows wouldn’t be broken? More lies. More Hasbara. The Jews are so used to having a single megaphone to blare their lies at people they’ve lost their touch and now they’re just babbling to themselves. Notice they veer off into planes, no planes because building 7 having the same support under it as “Air” well that’s difficult to deal with.

    We have people in the building who worked for the Emergency Management Team for New York city say they were blown up the stairwell by bombs. If he made that up it would be odd as hell. It would be really, really strange. Maybe the “Spoofers” can explain why he would make that up?

    It up to the “Spoofers” to explain abnormalities not us. They’re the ones describing miraculous turns of events. We’re just noting basic facts that anyone can see with their own eyes. We don’t need super miracle fires that melt steel, but not glass or lonesome building sections that when one section falls, the inner, the outside falls in sympathy. Must be love. Like a lovers leap where the outside seeing the inside go offed itself. So tragic building sections in love.

  362. Boris says:
    @Rurik

    Yes, but you thought Al Franken was being serious. Who cares what a washed up Nazi who can’t think straight says?

    • Replies: @Rurik
  363. Rurik says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    Hey JR,

    I missed this comment. I notice that sometimes in the comments section a comment will linger in the ether as other comments are displayed, and then out of the blue, they’ll show up farther up on the thread. A software glitch I guess.

    Anyways..

    I’m increasingly certain that the hijacking part of the story is just 100% hoax. The flights never even took place.

    I’m 100% that the “terrorist” narrative is a hoax. As for the planes, I’m 99% that a missile hit the Pentagon, and that no plane crashed in Shanksville. And I’m still 99% that planes did hit the towers, for the same reasons I’ve stated, mostly due to the obvious damage done to the towers by something that went in, rather than exploding out.

    One aspect of the various drills taking place on the same day

    If they were running drills for just such an event and exactly the same time and place as the event, then you can be as reasonably certain that it was an inside job (Sandy Hook, Boston “bombing”) as you can that the sun rises in the East.

    The chance of this actually being a genuine coincidence is very very very low.

    lol

    What are the odds that they construct some drill involving multiple hijackings and real terrorists decide to do exactly that. AND they decide to do it the same day that they are running the drill!

    not only the same day but the exact same time, with the vice president demanding that the “orders still stand”.

    It really is as if the entire edifice of our national security apparatus, including the DOD and NORAD and SAC and the Pentagon and CIA and FBI and NSA and the White House and media were all in cahoots with Bin Laden to make sure he successfully pulled it all off. And then was blamed for it. (or , Bin Laden was always nothing but a fabricated patsy)

    in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie,… …. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying.

    No planes versus yes planes may just be an honest, good-faithed disagreement. For me, what is obviously a total psyop is this “28 pages” bullshit! Things like that…

    on this we are at 100% agreement

    infighting in the 9/11 Truth community. I would have to assume that the various groups are totally infiltrated by Deep State agents

    the challenge is to filter out the sincerely duped, vs. the idiots, vs. the psyops trolls

    I put you and I down to sincerely duped, as for instance in the case of planes vs. no planes hit the WTC. One of us is in error, but it is a good faith error. I include most of us here debating this issue in this camp. The only way any of us (sincere) people here would not be in that camp is if there were no point at which we had not at least in some part and at some point been duped by the whole 911 fraud. I know I was at first, and I’m assuming all of us were. (Probably still are when it comes to certain details)

    Then there are the idiots. I don’t even have to mention his name ;)

    and then there are the psyop shills and trolls. They’re much tougher to glean. They’re smart and devious and try to make themselves seem sincere. Perhaps, (just perhaps) our late Geo falls into that category. (I hope not). But you see what I mean..

  364. Boris says:
    @Sam J.

    the inside of the building falling first is even more evidence that it was a planned explosion.

    lol.

    “Free fall of the whole building means it was controlled demolition!”

    “Actually, the internal structure of the building collapsed first so when global collapse started, there was very little support for the facade of the building. No, the descent of the north face was not free fall for its entirety, but it was for a brief period once essentially all support had been lost.”

    “Great, that fits my demolition theory EVEN BETTER!”

    You are hardly any better than the no-planes people.

  365. Rurik says:
    @Sparkon

    And as I’ve said above, in the overall scheme of things, it doesn’t really matter whether or not there were commercial jetliners crashed into the WTC because the commercial airplanes were not the agents of the WTC’s destruction.

    we all agree

    the minutia is simply academic

    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
  366. Rurik says:
    @JG

    Nevertheless, 9/11 was a “success”

    yep

    unless somehow that critical 100th monkey can see the truth

    we won’t be able to bring back the millions of innocents murdered and maimed, but we might at least be able to exact some justice for their deaths

    BDS is as good of a start as any I would think

    voting for Trump also

  367. Rurik says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    insightful post JR

    Well, Ron, it’s been 15 years, and based on this synthetic event, they have perpetrated an arc of destruction across a big swathe of the globe.

    well said!

    Imagine it is well understood that any mention of Uruguay will get you smeared as a “conspiracy theorist” and they will your destroy your career. “We can’t publish Paul Craig Roberts. The guy’s has gone nuts. He’s a Uruguay affirmer.”

    Under those conditions, how many “prominent” people would ever mention Uruguay

    I think it’s reasonable to expect that nearly every single person with a “respectable” reputation or a nice salary (or especially both!) would begin demanding that all these tinfoil hat wearing kooks stop frothing about this so-called country “Uruguay”. ‘It doesn’t exist, it never existed and you’re making damn fools of yourselves talking about it’.

    remember Bubba talking about 911 as an inside job

    just replace ‘inside job’ with ‘Uruguay’.. “Uruguay?! How dare you?!

    do you think Judith Miller or David Brooks would be taking a team with them down to Uruguay to do an expose’? Interviewing people and the president of the country?

    And the maps wouldn’t be a problem. They change those daily. Uruguay would disappear just like Hatay Province of Syria. You can still find maps that show it as part of Syria, but as soon as the official narrative changed, so did the official maps. Uruguay would become part of Brazil (and it has always been part of Brazil – we have always been at war with Eurasia)

    It really is that simple

    For example, if some real crazies were saying that smoking cigarettes is good for you, I guess it would make sense to pose the question: “Can you name a prominent/credible person in the medical field who makes this claim?”

    they could turn this around in a fortnight. Look at Global Warming. All they have to do is put it out there that their looking for some scientists to do some government research, and that there are grant$ available. Finding “scientists” to rubber stamp the Global Warming threat is like going to Walmart and buying them off the shelf. If you wanted to change people’s attitudes about smoking, I figure a blitz with a few dozen celebrities and some official “scientists” on TV with perfect lighting and then Obama chiming in at the end to seal the deal would bring back smoking with a vengeance. You’d have young SJW nurses smoking in hospital rooms and threatening anyone who complains as a “denier”.

    you have to watch to the end of this short video clip

    great comment JR

  368. Rurik says:
    @Boris

    now Al Franken in a “washed up Nazi”?

    seek help son

  369. Erebus says:
    @Rurik

    But I’ve been giving this some thought, and while I believe you guys are all acting in good faith, I still can’t get passed the holes.

    Well, they had the opposite effect on me. They looked so Wiley E. Coyote cartoonish that I figured somebody’s having some fun with this. Basically, I think the “event artists” that had occupied those floors were mocking the American public. Visit http://gelitin.net/ to get an idea of what these people think is art.

    so how would you make an exploding entrance hole if you’re presumably doing so from the inside of the building, that would make all those very substantial beams bend outward, (but instead they bend inward)?

    I assume you mean the exterior columns. If so, the answer is simple. You will note that those columns are covered by aluminium cladding. Placing shaped charges between the cladding and the column results in blast goes out, columns bend in.

    BTW, do you really think that an airliner, modified as you say, would really squeeze itself neatly between those columns? The column faces seem to occupy about 35-40% of the total face area. Given that quite a few in the impact zone remained intact, what happened to the aircraft materials that hit them head on? Did those materials go sideways, so as to get through the gaps? Or what?

    Rurik, I just get a sheet aluminium structure through those steel columns. Engines, maybe some of the landing carriage, wing roots, okaaayyy. Fuselage and wing bodies? No way. They’d accordion and 35-40% would fall to the ground below. In any case, nothing was found either inside the buildings or on the street, so we’re chasing ghosts.

    • Replies: @Boris
    , @Rurik
  370. utu says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    No Planes Hypothesis (NPH): How to prove it?

    My problem with Simon Shack and Ace Baker is that I cannot verify their arguments (they use somewhat different arguments) because I am not a specialist in video fakery methods. If I were a specialist I would have to reproduce their analysis on my own using my own video analysis tools and having access to the same or better videos they had and had some idea on the chain of custody of the videos. The problem is similar to the proof of Four Color Theorem (FTC). I cannot reproduce it without the computer program that was used to prove the theorem. I would have to understand the program. Still I accepted the result only because I want to believe that there were some mathematicians who verified the proof and I believe that mathematical science is a sound system (at least till the FCT proof came along) unlike many other sciences but neither I nor 99.9% of mathematicians can verify it without lots of learning and work. Fortunately the FCT is not very important one (so far) in terms of mathematical consequences so the standard of proof in terms of accessibility can be lower. The bottom line is that I cannot say honestly that I know that FCT is true in the same way as I can say that Pythagoras theorem is true.

    In case of NPH video analysis I do not know of anybody “prominent”, “trust worthy”… who verified or scrutinized arguments of Shack or Baker. I could check credentials of mathematicians who proved FCT and from this I granted them attributes of having good skills and most importantly good faith. The same cannot be done in case of Simon Shack or Ace Baker. I can be very easily deceived by magicians. Video fakery as well as showing alleged video fakery for me is kind of magic because I do not know where and how to look for the clues that it is fakery or that the proof of fakery might be a fakery itself.

    I think we have already established that eye witnesses in matter of NPH are useless as an argument for or against. They cannot be used to make a definitive decision about the validity of NPH. So what proof would be sufficient?

    (a) A video w/o planes if it were found and then verified of being authentic. Simon Shack mentions that in some Asian country a video w/o planes was shown but strangely he does not explore it further.
    (b) Finding some passengers or crew members were alive past 9/11. Very hard. Did reports that some hijackers were alive changed anything or sent anybody to do further research on authenticity of these claims? If you find one they always can say this is just an isolated mistake: not this John Brown.
    (c) Proving (very difficult) that some passengers or crew did not exist. (Betsy Ong?)
    (d) Confessions of culprits? I think many people already confessed to being in JFK conspiracy and did anything happen? How many people confessed to Lindbergh baby kidnapping?

    So what are we left with? A hypothesis that is very elegant. A seemingly fool proof method as points (a) to (d) indicate. And most important what we have already established that the NPH offered the planners the lowest risk of failure in the most important part of the plot, i.e., creating a linkage between terrorists and the WTC destruction. They could have demolished WTC w/o planes but the story line and the stunning effect would be much weaker besides like in 1993 they would have to find the culprits somewhere in NY or NJ and put them on trial.

    Since 9/11 I had to revamp all my concepts about epistemology and started to look at the history of science and how did it proceed that we began to know what we know. I realized that Copernicus only postulated heliocentric system and he did not prove it. He could not prove it! Actually it is very hard to prove it experimentally when you are here on earth. Probably no single human beings with a telescope and computational tools only could prove it even nowadays. So how do you really know that it is really heliocentric. Probably because this kind of knowledge is so complex a Flat Earth theories can fly. I think I will check out some of their videos. Perhaps you should too. What if they turn out to be seductively convincing like Simon Shack? How will you disprove them? You must disprove them! But I just said that you cannot even if you had a telescope and computer. Perhaps you could try to build Foucault pendulum? But looking it up in wiki is not a proof. So what is really holding up our reality? The trust! It’s the trust that creates some form of matrix in which for example the solar system is heliocentric which 99.9999% of people cannot verify on their own and also other beliefs that do not happen to be true. Events like 9/11 break down that trust, create a fissure in the matrix. But the matrix is in the constant process of repairing itself of healing the fissures. If you mange to create a permanent fissure a paradigm shifts as Kuhn has described it. After the shift people’s beliefs change because the matrix is different but they do not get any wiser in terms of being able to figure it out by themselves. Their knowledge comes from wiki that just updated its entries.

  371. ogunsiron says:
    @Boris

    I’ve never had time to pay attention to 911 truth but I’m not impressed by what I’m seeing here and elsewhere. “north face free falling” does not imply “whole floor free falling” seems pretty straightforward to me.

  372. Boris says:
    @Erebus

    They’d accordion and 35-40% would fall to the ground below.

    You don’t have to guess on this. You can calculate the amount of force exerted on the structure. F=ma. It’s plenty.

  373. alexander says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    I guess, Jonathan, to get to the “CGI truth” you would have to go to the source.

    You guessed it.

    The “Dancing Israelis”.

    They are the ONLY ones(we know of) who set up a camera to record and “document” the event BEFORE it happened.

    Since they were parked on a roof top in New Jersey, situated for its clear line of sight, their recordings would show either planes or no planes, coming in, on the angle, from a distance.

    And it would all be recorded, CGI free.

    How about that for a couple of “high fives” and a little merry “Jig” ?.

  374. Rurik says:
    @Erebus

    You will note that those columns are covered by aluminium cladding. Placing shaped charges between the cladding and the column results in blast goes out, columns bend in.

    you’re joking of course

    They’d accordion and 35-40% would fall to the ground below. In any case, nothing was found either inside the buildings or on the street, so we’re chasing ghosts.

    as far as nothing found, we don’t of course know what they found in the wreckage, as it was all treated very secretly. But I honestly really don’t know for 100% certain, except that those steel beams that are bent going in were only done so with a whole hell of a lot of force.

    I would suppose that the light aluminum materials on the planes were more or less dragged though the openings with a combination of inertia and perhaps mostly due to the heavier stuff dragging it all through the openings that were created when the heavy stuff blasted though.

    It’s all a very minor detail however, and there should perhaps be some forum to discuss it all. In fact there probably are.

    But none of these details changes the fact that it was an inside job with complicity at the highest levels the US and Israeli governments and media. That we all know..

  375. Nothing adds up in the 9-11 story: a fairy tale for the War on terror by the Jew-only apartheid-state of Israël.

    Their minions (AIPAC) controll US foreign policy 21-first century for greater Israël.

    However, the 9-11-2001 WTC collapses are a litmus test for any academic, who claims to think scientifically.

    Best 9-11 youtube vid: Albononi’s WTC collapse

  376. @Rurik

    Agreed. What is key is for all Americans, all people everywhere, truther or not, is to focus on the glaring impossibilities (Lies) in the official story and demand an open, independent and thorough investigation and individuals held to account.

    Only such a new rigorous investigation can answer the many unanswered questions and then the nation can begin to cleanse and unify, for its own sake.

    • Replies: @Anonymous Smith
  377. @NoseytheDuke

    There will be no thorough and independent investigation…ever. This should be perfectly obvious to everyone by now, some 15 YEARS down the road.

    A thorough and independent investigation could only come to one conclusion: 9/11 was an inside job perpetrated by the Mossad, the CIA, and Zionist elements (Sayanim) within the US government and the private sector.

    The ramifications of those findings would rip this country apart, which would be the best thing that ever happened to us! Finally, we would be rid of the poisonous Jew!

  378. @Stephen R. Diamond

    But since no one seems able to answer it, the Pentagon seems to be a gigantic hole in 9/11 trutherism. [I don't find any consensus on the Internet. Some truthers say missiles did it, but you don't find any serious argument for it. I find it odd that critics of trutherism don't mention this - at least that I've seen.]

    • Replies: @David Bauer
    , @Boris
  379. No luck finding any consensus on the net? Shock and horror! Try thinking for yourself.

  380. @Stephen R. Diamond

    It was a serious question.

    No, it wasn’t. Stop being such a shit eater.

    • Replies: @Stephen R. Diamond
  381. @Stephen R. Diamond

    Stephen: The Pentagon is not a hole in the truth movement. The most astute, serious and experienced truthers believe that the “flyover” theory is the only rational explanation. This point has been debated exhaustively (and I do mean exhaustively) over the years in the comment section of Craig McKee’s blog, “Truth and Shadows”. To introduce yourself to the subject, you should go to the website maintained by the Citizens Investigation Team and watch the video “National Security Alert”.

  382. Boris says:
    @Stephen R. Diamond

    There’s no consensus in the 9/11 truther community, period. What you see is exactly what you’d expect from a bunch of people unhappy with the geopolitical construct of the world who are applying their own varying combination of related cognitive biases to a set of facts that makes them feel correct.

    If the government said that water was wet, they’d come up with a “dry water” theory and, when faced with the evidence of a wet t-shirt contest, they would proclaim that it is impossible for a solid white fabric to become translucent and that the garments in question are really woven glass with a chemical agent infused that can alter translucency on command and that we “tit-viewers” are so distracted by the CGI breasts and 3D virtual special effects real-time overlays, that we don’t even notice that the ladies dancing and smiling at us are really old Jews sweeping the dollar bills into their arms at the same time we pay them $5 for a bottle of extremely dry Evian.

    Because Evian spelled backwards is “naive.” QED.

    • Replies: @Stephen R. Diamond
  383. Great example of whataboutery. Anyone looking at your endless posting history can see that you’ve got nothing but an agenda. An evil agenda in terms of what is best for the American people.

    You and Stephen should get a room.

  384. @Jonathan Revusky

    Some of you truthers seem to perceive ridicule even where it doesn’t occur – and to be extraordinarily sensitive to it for individuals who try to appear so completely convinced.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  385. @David Bauer

    Here’s something from McKee: https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2011/02/06/the-assault-on-cit-who-is-really-undermining-911-truth/#more-482

    According to this, it was indeed a controlled demolition. (“Flyover” describes a concurrent event.)

    Thanks for the reference. [Perhaps you can explain the sensitive reaction of some truthers to my question. Is "shiteater" a new meme in some circles?]

  386. @Boris

    For lack of competence, I haven’t even tried to adjudicate the engineering debate. But when I see The Saker (as you’ve pointed out) making obvious errors that aren’t even acknowledged by Truthers, I conclude that they (these particular Truthers) have little interest in truth. Their Trump-style deflection of questions cements this conclusion.

  387. @Stephen R. Diamond

    Some of you truthers seem to perceive ridicule even where it doesn’t occur – and to be extraordinarily sensitive

    Oh really? So, just to focus the question a bit… is it your view that I am simply imagining that Fred Reed in this latest article on the “Legion of the Tinfoil Hat” is attempting to insult and ridicule me and likeminded people? Am I just being “extraordinarily sensitive”? Is that it?

  388. @guest

    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

    [MORE]

    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.

  389. @David Bauer

    The plane crash into the Pentagon was one of the most witnessed plane crashes in the history of aviation.
    The Citizen Investigation Team, on their now moribund website, reached a conclusion that the plane flew over the Pentagon by not including the evidence that it hit the Pentagon. Of all the theories presented on the subject of 911 their’s is the most obviously invalid, no to say nonsensical.

  390. @Rehmat

    Deuteronomy 32:8,9

    “When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance,
    when he divided all mankind,
    he set up boundaries for the peoples
    according to the number of the sons of Israel.
    For the Lord’s portion is his people,
    Jacob his allotted inheritance.”

    Seems to me that all nations revolve around Israel.
    So, yes, I can ‘dig it dude.’

  391. “Do FSB, Mossad and CIA exchange notes and know how?”

    I’ve come to believe that all the intelligence agencies are connected. ISI, MI5, FSB, CIA, Mossad, RAW…they all have a core group that facilitates things (creates our “reality” so to speak) and these core groups work together. The vast majority of the agents aren’t in on this. It’s a lot of theater, similar to the Democrat-Republican charade here in the U.S. Just as financiers have funded both sides of conflicts going back at least to the Napoleonic Wars, so too the interests behind the intelligence agencies are aligned.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All The Saker Comments via RSS
PastClassics
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
Hundreds of POWs may have been left to die in Vietnam, abandoned by their government—and our media.
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.