Softpanorama

May the source be with you, but remember the KISS principle ;-)
Contents Bulletin Scripting in shell and Perl Network troubleshooting History Humor

Mystery of Building 7 Collapse

News Is national security state in the USA gone rogue ? Recommended Links  Neoliberal Brainwashing -- Journalism in the Service of the Powerful Few Neoliberal war on reality or the importance of controlling the narrative Label "conspiracy theorist" as a form of censorship
Inverted Totalitarism  Nation under attack meme The Deep State  Deception as an art form Guardians of Power Reconciling Human Rights With Total Surveillance
Total Surveillance Media-Military-Industrial Complex The Grand Chessboard Elite Theory And the Revolt of the Elite Two Party System as Polyarchy The Iron Law of Oligarchy
Edward Snowden as Symbol of Resistance to National Security State Facebook as Giant Database about Users Social Sites as intelligence collection tools Systematic Breach of Vienna Convention Neocolonialism as Financial Imperialism Corporate Media: Journalism In the Service of the Powerful Few
American Exceptionalism New American Militarism Machiavellism  Neo-fashism Humor Etc

Originally published at Foreign Policy Journal by Shawn Hamilton on 10/27/14

The terms “conspiracy theorist” and “conspiracy nut” are used frequently to discredit a perceived adversary using emotional rather than logical appeals. It’s important for the sake of true argument that we define the term “conspiracy” and use it appropriately, not as an ad hominem attack on someone whose point of view we don’t share.

According to my Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary, the word “conspiracy” derives from the Latin “conspirare,” which means literally “to breathe together” in the sense of agreeing to commit a crime. The primary definition is “planning and acting together secretly, especially for a harmful or unlawful purpose, such as murder or treason.”

It was in this sense that Mark Twain astutely observed,

“A conspiracy is nothing but a secret agreement of a number of men for the pursuance of policies which they dare not admit in public.”

Conspiracies are common. If they weren’t, police stations would not need conspiracy units to investigate and prosecute crimes such as “conspiracy to import cocaine” or any other collusion on the part of two or more people to subvert the law.

Unfortunately, too many people smugly chide “conspiracy theories” as if they imagine that such a derisive characterization reflects superior intellect—whether or not they know anything about the issue in question. It’s a pitiful display of ego inflation and intellectual dishonesty, yet it appears to be a common approach preferred by those either short on information and critical thinking skills or harboring a hidden agenda.

Here are a few examples of past “conspiracy theories” that have been commonly derided but were later determined to be credible:

1933 Business PlotSmedley Butler, a decorated United States Marine Corps major general, who wrote a book called War is a Racket, testified before a congressional committee that a group of powerful industrialists, who had tried to recruit him, were planning to form a fascist veterans’ group that intended to assassinate Franklin Roosevelt and overthrow the government in a coup. While news media at the time belittled Butler and called the affair a hoax, the congressional committee determined that Butler’s allegations were credible, although no-one was prosecuted.

Project Paperclip:  After “winning” World War II, the US imported hundreds of Nazis and their families through “Project Paperclip,” so-named because ID photos were clipped to paper dossiers. It was set up by an agency within the Office of Strategic Services, predecessor of the CIA. Along with creating false identities and political biographies, Paperclip operatives expunged or altered Nazi records and other criminal histories in order to illegally circumvent President Truman’s edict that prohibited Nazis from obtaining security clearances. Thus, high-level Nazis waltzed into sensitive positions of authority and secrecy in the US military-industrial establishment, including the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), major corporations, and universities. These Germans were conveniently referred to as “former Nazis,” but “former” was commonly just a euphemism for “active” and “ardent.”

Consider the irony of the United States’ moon mission. In order to successfully land men on the lunar surface and return them to Earth, the US depended almost exclusively on Nazis. A notable example was rocket scientist Wernher von Braun, a member of the Allgemeine SS, who would eventually lead the US space program. Von Braun had exploited concentration camp labor in Germany to build V-2 rockets at Peenemünde, and German aviation doctors’ gruesome and often fatal experiments at Dachau and other prisons afforded information that would help keep American astronauts alive in space.

While many Americans would prefer to call it a conspiracy theory, the United States defeated the Nazi organization in Germany only to transplant that ideology directly into the US after the war, and not just among members of the lay population but, more significantly, among members of the very “military-industrial complex” that President Eisenhower (a five-star general during WWII) had presciently warned the nation about in his 1961 message of leave-taking and farewell.

Operation Northwoods:  Declassified documents revealed that in 1962 the CIA was planning to execute false flag terrorist attacks, such as killing random American citizens and blowing up civilian targets, including a US airliner and ship, in order to blame Castro and justify invading Cuba.

Gulf of Tonkin:  President Lyndon Johnson used a contrived version of this 1964 event to justify escalation of the Vietnam War. It was claimed that Vietnamese gunboats had fired on the USS Maddox. It never happened—or at best was grossly distorted and overblown—yet the story served to prompt Congress to pass the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which provided the public justification Johnson needed to attack North Vietnam. This led to the deaths of about two million Vietnamese people and fifty thousand Americans.

MK-ULTRA:  As its code name suggests, MK-ULTRA was a mind control program run by the Office of Scientific Intelligence for the ostensible purpose of discovering ways to glean information from Communist spies although its applications were undoubtedly more far-reaching. It employed various methodologies including sensory deprivation and isolation, sexual abuse, and the administration of powerful psychotropic drugs such as LSD to unwitting subjects, including military personnel, prisoners, and college students. Many of them suffered serious consequences. One biochemist, Frank Olson, who was secretly slipped a strong dose of LSD at a CIA meeting, suffered a severe psychotic break and died when, for whatever reason, he plummeted from his apartment window to the pavement below. Such revelations came to light in 1975 during hearings by the congressional Church Committee (Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities) and the presidential Rockefeller Commission. These investigations were hindered by CIA Director Richard Helms who in 1973 had ordered the MK-ULTRA files destroyed.

Operation Mockingbird: This was a CIA media control program exposed by the Church Committee in 1975. It revealed the CIA’s efforts from the 1950s through the 1970s to pay well-known foreign and domestic journalists from “reputable” media agencies such as the Washington Post, Time Magazine, Newsweek, the Miami Herald, the New York Times, the New York Herald Tribune, Miami News, and CBS, among others, to publish CIA propaganda, manipulating the news by planting stories in domestic and foreign news outlets. During the hearings, Senator Church asked an agency representative, “Do you have any people paid by the CIA who are working for television networks?” The speaker eyed his lawyer then replied, “This I think gets into the details, Mr. Chairman, that I’d like to get into in executive session.” In other words, he didn’t want to admit the truth publicly. He gave the same response when asked if the CIA planted stories with the major wire services United Press International (UPI) and the Associated Press (AP). In his 1997 book, Virtual Government — in the chapter “’And Now a Word from Our Sponsor – The CIA': The Birth of Operation Mockingbird, the Takeover of the Corporate Press & the Programming of Public Opinion” — Alex Constantine claims that during the 1950s “some 3,000 salaried and contract CIA employees were eventually engaged in propaganda efforts.” I’m curious to know what the estimate would be today.

CIA Drug Smuggling: It’s no longer a secret that clandestine arms of US Intelligence have profited from running drugs for many years. I first became aware of the issue when a Vietnam veteran claimed he had helped load opium cultivated in Laos onto military transport planes. The opium was turned into heroin and shipped around the world, sometimes in the visceral cavities of dead soldiers. A Hollywood version of these events is portrayed in the film Air America, but the movie is based on historical truth. When the US military presence in Southeast Asia declined and the focus shifted to Central America, cocaine became the new revenue source. Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Gary Webb ran a well-documented three-part series in the San Jose Mercury News called “Dark Alliance” alleging that traffickers with US intelligence ties had marketed the cocaine in Los Angeles and other cities where it was turned into the new and highly addictive form known as “crack,” inflicting a scourge that claimed the lives and freedom of thousands. One guy I met in Compton who had been arrested for crack possession described the drug this way: “It doesn’t really get you high,” he said. “You just want more.” Webb’s allegations were confirmed by an LAPD Narcotics Officer and whistleblower, Michael Ruppert, and the story received additional confirmation from CIA contract pilot Terry Reed, whose story is revealed in his 1994 book Compromised: Clinton, Bush and the CIA. According to Reed, the sale of cocaine was used to finance the Contras in Central America when congressional funding was blocked by the Boland Amendment. He claimed the operation was run out of Mena, Arkansas when Bill Clinton was governor. Military cargo planes were flown to Central America with military hardware, he said, and then returned to Mena loaded with coke.

I could add to the list, and it would be a long one. The Iran-Contra scandal, Watergate, the FBI’s Counter Intelligence Program (COINTELPRO), the Tuskegee syphilis experiment—there is no shortage of crimes that were planned and committed by two or more people and thus constituted conspiracy. Conspiracies happen, and before any crime is solved it spawns theories. There are people who look at these theories rationally using logic and discernment, and there are others who are illogical, engaging in fallacious, emotion-based thinking and jumping to unjustified conclusions based on little or no evidence. The term “conspiracy theorist,” however, has been manipulated to suggest only those in the latter category.

The John F. Kennedy assassination provides a good example of how the term “conspiracy” has been misapplied to disparage people who find fault with official versions of major events. After Kennedy was murdered, very few people questioned the Warren Commission’s verdict that Lee Oswald had shot the president unassisted, and anyone who challenged that belief was branded a “conspiracy nut” (or buff) unworthy of respect or consideration. Forty years later, a 2003 Gallup poll revealed that 75% of the US population believed there had been a conspiracy to kill JFK.

Apparently some people have a psychological need to protect themselves from unpleasant realities, so it’s easier for them to label others as conspiracy nuts than to assimilate hard but discomforting facts. In the case of the John Kennedy assassination, even a congressional committee, the House Select Committee on Assassinations, concluded in 1979 that there had been a conspiracy to kill John Kennedy. They tried to soften that reality by calling it a “limited conspiracy” as if Oswald’s drunken cousin had helped him and not elements of US Intelligence, but the fact remains that the US government has officially admitted there was a conspiracy to assassinate Kennedy. “Conspiracy theorists” were finally vindicated, but I’ve never heard anyone apologize for disparaging their names and questioning their sanity.

“9/11,” of course, is the current topic that yields the most accusations of conspiracy nuttiness. Anyone who challenges the 9/11 Commission’s conclusions are branded “conspiracy theorists” (or nuts, wackos or kooks) as were their predecessors when JFK was killed.

History repeats itself

One of the strange truths about the 9/11 affair is that members of the 9/11 Commission also called the event a conspiracy. That alone shows the term is being intentionally manipulated. In the Commission’s view, the conspirators were exclusively fanatical Muslims, but somehow that investigative body has been exempt from accusations of conspiracy theorizing even though they called the event a conspiracy. Apparently one must challenge the official version of events to qualify as a “conspiracy theorist.”

I asked Jim Marrs, the popular author and critic of various official versions of history, what he considered to be the origin of “conspiracy” as a derogatory term and how it has been manipulated: “The term ‘conspiracy theory’ was consciously submitted to assets of the CIA back in a document from the 1960s to be used to counter factual information that was continually being made public regarding the Kennedy assassination. From there, these assets, including media personalities, pundits, academics and government officials, expanded the term to become a pejorative for any statements not complying with the Establishment line,” Marrs said. “However, its repetitive overuse, plus the fact that the 9/11 attacks obviously involved a conspiracy, today has lessened the impact of the term.”

Many critics of the 9/11 Commission report make some valid points, and it’s not fair to simply dismiss them as conspiracy theorists when the very people they’re countering also claim there was a conspiracy. The question is simply: whose conspiracy was it?

Even officials tasked with investigating 9/11 knew there was plenty of deception involved. Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission, John Farmer, said on page four of his book The Ground Truth, “At some level of government, at some point in time, there was an agreement not to tell the people the truth about what happened.” In their book Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission, the two co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission, Lee Hamilton and Thomas Kean, outlined reasons they believe the government established the Commission in a manner that ensured its failure. These reasons included delay in initiating the proceedings, too short a deadline for the scope of the work, insufficient funding, and lack of cooperation by politicians and key government agencies including the Department of Defense, the Federal Aviation Administration, and NORAD. “So there were all kinds of reasons we thought we were set up to fail,” the chairmen said.

How much clearer can they be?

Conspiracies exist. They have always existed, and not wanting them to be true does not invalidate their existence. I think it’s time we reject the intentional misappropriation of the term “conspiracy” by forces attempting to manipulate public opinion and restore the term to its original and proper meaning. As long as we observe logic and reason, there is no intellectual dishonor in contemplating and discussing conspiracies, and doing so is imperative if we wish to retain what’s left of our liberties.

A version of this article was originally published at OpEdNews.com.

[Correction, Oct. 28, 2014: An earlier version of this article mistakenly stated that a chapter title of Alex Constantine’s 1997 book Virtual Government is “Mockingbird: The Subversion of The Free Press by the CIA”. The chapter is titled “‘And Now a Word from Our Sponsor – The CIA': The Birth of Operation Mockingbird, the Takeover of the Corporate Press & the Programming of Public Opinion.” The text has been revised to correct the error.]


Top Visited
Switchboard
Latest
Past week
Past month

NEWS CONTENTS

Old News ;-)

[Oct 08, 2017] Although the great majority of Americans do not believe the Warren Commissions conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald by himself killed Kennedy, they find it all but impossible to believe the alternative. This homespun psychological safety net was shattered by Stones film

Notable quotes:
"... Although the great majority of Americans do not believe the Warren Commissions conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald by himself killed Kennedy, they find it all but impossible to believe the alternative. This homespun psychological safety net was shattered by Stones film. From the time they saw that film they have been unable to accept the creative falseness of the cover story. That film made conspiracy the only true conclusion. ..."
Oct 08, 2017 | www.amazon.com

Few MOTION pictures of the past several decades have had the impact upon the general public as did Oliver Stones film JFK. The fact of the existence of a conspiracy to kill the President of the United States is shocking; yet many Americans try to brush it aside.

Although the great majority of Americans do not believe the Warren Commissions conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald by himself killed Kennedy, they find it all but impossible to believe the alternative. This homespun psychological safety net was shattered by Stones film. From the time they saw that film they have been unable to accept the creative falseness of the cover story. That film made conspiracy the only true conclusion.

Of particular note was the films effect upon the professional community of assassination buffs. To begin with, these writers and researchers are not a homogeneous society. There are some who support the government line, with its Warren Commission, magic bullet, Lee Harvey Oswald, Jack Ruby, and all the rest of that massive, highly contrived fiction. Then there are the dedicated researchers who know that the Warren Commission Report was a smoke screen and that all of its mythology is a masterful cover story designed and nourished at the highest level by those who have spent a lifetime concealing the facts of the case. It was this latter group of buffs who found encouragement in Stones masterful film, as well as renewed strength in its message.

To these more or less well organized groupings, we must add the new and rapidly growing hordes of assassination investigators who encountered reality and encouragement in the film and who have become interested in its challenging message. For them Stones film presented a comprehensive coverage of the assassination and all of its ramifications, public and private, that provided everyone with material they may not have heard before.

And, then there are the pure professionals. Many of the more prominent of this group viciously attacked Oliver Stone and his movie. Now why would they, of all people, so violently denigrate the film that supported the fact of the conspiracy? Don't they see the truth? Have they made public their own personal beliefs? Quite frankly, I doubt it. These hard-liners comprise the most ardent sector of the assassination buff melange because they are professional writers and journalists who work for some of the most important media outlets in the country.

[Sep 17, 2017] Mohamed Atta was allegedly training at the airport in the same town where National Enquirer had its headquarter so it would be easy to write juicy pieces about his life there

Which suggests that anthrax attack was a part of 9/11 cover-up...
Notable quotes:
"... Mohamed Atta was allegedly training at the airport in the same town where National Enquirer had its headquarter so it would be easy to write juicy pieces about his life there. ..."
Sep 15, 2017 | www.unz.com

September 15, 2017

utu > , September 15, 2017 at 4:12 pm GMT

@Anonymous

I always wondered about the anthrax and the DC sniper since neither seemed to fit into any prevailing narrative. If the goal was to threaten noncompliant politicians then only a loose fit to the prevailing narrative would be needed to give cover.

Makes sense!

Anthrax was pretty obvious, I think. The message was sent to politicians and media. Including the taboid National Enquirer. Tabloids must be policed because unlike NYT or WaPo they may not know what is the narrative to stick to. Mohamed Atta was allegedly training at the airport in the same town where National Enquirer had its headquarter so it would be easy to write juicy pieces about his life there.

DC sniper occurred during the session of Congress about to give green light for war in Iraq. There was some opposition. DC sniper was a psyop to create fear and pressure.

[Sep 17, 2017] Watch Dr J. Leroy Hulsey , Chair of the University's Civil and Environmental Engineering Department who is to release his results of finite element analysis of WTC7 collapse in October or November this year

Sep 17, 2017 | www.unz.com

September 12, 2017

utu > , September 12, 2017 at 4:53 am GMT

Look what tabloid Daily Mail put on 9/11 anniversary:

The conspiracies that won't go away: Brother of 9/11 victim claim the US orchestrated the atrocity as new study shows it was impossible that the third tower collapsed from fire

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4867124/9-11-conspiracy-theories-persist-16-years-atrocity.html#ixzz4s9YM7cg0

This may explain why anthrax letter was sent to National Enquirer. Certainly NYT or WaPo did not need a reminder how to stick to the narrative but the National Enquirer could have gone out of the line and for example started serving juicy stories of private life of Mohammed Atta while in Florida. National Enquirer headquarter is not far from the airport where Atta was allegedly training.

_______________________________
Keep watch on Dr J. Leroy Hulsey , Chair of the University's Civil and Environmental Engineering Department who is to release his results of finite element analysis of WTC7 collapse in October or November this year (It has already been delayed at least once).

http://www.wtc7evaluation.org

http://ine.uaf.edu/projects/wtc7/

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth provided funding to the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) to evaluate if fire caused the collapse of WTC 7 and to examine what may have occurred at 5:20 P.M. on September 11, 2001. Therefore, the UAF research team evaluated the structural response due to the reported fire. A structural framing virtual model of WTC 7 was used to conduct the study. The reported failure was simulated using three-dimensional finite element computer models of the building. The research team studied the building's response using two finite element programs, ABAQUS and SAP2000 version 18. At the micro level, three types of evaluations were performed. In plan-view, the research team evaluated: 1) the planar response of the structural elements to the fire(s) using wire elements; 2) the building's response using the NIST's approach with solid elements; and 3) the validity of NIST's findings using solid elements. At the macro-level, progressive collapse, i.e., the structural system's response to local failures, is being studied using SAP2000 with wire elements, as well as with ABAQUS, and it is near completion. The findings thus far are that fire did not bring down this building. Building failure simulations show that, to match observation, the entire inner core of this building failed nearly simultaneously.

Intelligent Dasein > , Website September 12, 2017 at 5:13 am GMT

@utu Your X=0. No event has been proven to be a pure hoax, yet. Yes there is some circumstantial evidence however most of it are just allegations made by various youtube yahoos and other falseflaggots on the basis of their amateurish analysis of available videos. Spotting the "bad acting" is their favorite modus operandi.

Actually the falseflaggots who sprout on youtube like mushrooms after the rain after each terrorist event might be the real target of the psyop to make them believe in 2+2=5. Most of them already do.

Do not get me wrong. I am convinced there are many false flag operations however personally I doubt that hoaxes are used. I would not do hoaxes. If I were running the operation real people would be killed. My belief stems from the logic how the powers may behave to accomplish their objectives and not from overwhelming evidence that they do so because neither I or you do not have such an evidence.

My main point in this thread was the "bad acting" schtick demonstrated here by videos posted by the author and comments made by Revusky. I object to such evidence because I do not believe that the author or Revusky or countless youtube yahoos are in position to determine whether a given behavior like by, say Robie Parker was bad acting or genuine expression of his emotional state commensurate with the gravity of the event.

Conspiracy theorists who pride themselves on ability to catch inconsistencies in the official narratives and spot the BS are actually very gullible partly because they are susceptible to confirmation bias and many of them do no have insights into workings of their own minds. This is the issue of poor human materiel. They are our foot soldiers unfortunately. Many of them would do really well in the Solomon Asch experiment as they are very susceptible to peer pressure within the confirmation bias. See the discussion under any "bad acting" video on YT and you will be witnessing Solomon Asch experiment in progress. Conspiracy theorists happen to be great conformists.

For years a picture of Brzezinski is circulating internet allegedly showing him with Osama bin Laden:

https://9gag.com/gag/aD3G9j7/osama-bin-laden-and-zbigniew-brzezinski

One can easily find other pictures shot at the same time:

http://www.911myths.com/index.php?title=Bin_Laden_and_Brzezinski

to realize that the guy standing next too Brzezinski can't be Osama bin Laden who was 6"-7" taller than Brzezinski. Yet the picture is being shown somewhere as we speak. This falsely attributed picture is not needed to tell the story of creation of mujahideen in Afghanistan by the US and the role of Brzezinski in it which began way before the Soviet invasion. However the conspiracy theorists are not eager to debunk the picture because they love it, they think it would undermine their cause but most of them are just happy with it because they are doing very well in the Ash experiment. They do not feel an urge to verify what they have learnt on some conspiracy sites. These are out foot soldiers. We are not going to win war with this kind of human materiel. Very good observations, utu. I know we've had our differences before, but you have been on fire in this thread.

One point to add: Given the absolutely morbid state of the psychology and spirituality of the average Westerner, these bizarre reactions to the tragic deaths of their relatives do not surprise me in the least. These people really are that self-absorbed and clueless. If we were really a nation that cared about family honor and protecting one's own, we would not have the sick society we see all around us. These "bad actors" are the true face of our fellow citizens.

For the record, I am very much convinced the 9/11 was not a false flag, at least not in the sense that there was any controlled demolition. I was doing quantum mechanics when I was 14; I have been to engineering school; if one more of these armchair Einsteins tries to lecture me about "the laws of physics," I'm going to put my foot up his ass. I am, however, quite amenable to the notion that the US government probably had some prior knowledge of the attack and has been covering up the true culprits since day one.

I believe that the Syrian Gas Baby attack of earlier this year, which prompted a cruise missile salvo from President Trump, almost certainly was a false flag and a very embarrassing one at that.

Randal > , September 12, 2017 at 12:20 pm GMT

@Delinquent Snail "This appears to be a propagandist "Black Lives Matter"-style abuse of the term "kids". Why not go the whole DACA hog and call them children?"

Im not even 30 and i refer to most people under 21 as kids. They lack real world experience and sure as hell dont act like adults. Some do, but most are adolescent minded people with adult bodies. The only ones there i wouldnt outright call kids are the Hychami brothers.

Im not even 30 and i refer to most people under 21 as kids. They lack real world experience and sure as hell dont act like adults. Some do, but most are adolescent minded people with adult bodies.

Funnily enough, I (from my, shall we say, more advanced age) tend to have the same attitude towards the under-30s

A famous and very successful politician (ok, it was Adolf Hitler) wrote:

Generally speaking a man should not publicly take part in politics before he has reached the age of thirty, though, of course, exceptions must be made in the case of those who are naturally gifted with extraordinary political abilities. That at least is my opinion to-day. And the reason for it is that until he reaches his thirtieth year or thereabouts a man's mental development will mostly consist in acquiring and sifting such knowledge as is necessary for the groundwork of a general platform from which he can examine the different political problems that arise from day to day and be able to adopt a definite attitude towards each.

He was right on that, I think (the kind of discussion we engage in here is not "taking part in politics" in that sense, I think, but rather part of the process of acquiring and sifting knowledge).

Anyway, as I noted before, I think there's a difference between informally referring to those much younger than yourself as "kids", and doing so in an essay where propagandist intent might be inferred.

republic > , September 12, 2017 at 2:39 pm GMT

@ChuckOrloski Utu,

Please read Paul Craig Roberts' latest article on 9/11 anniversary # 16! News on WTC-7.

Thank you! https://www.lewrockwell.com/2017/09/paul-craig-roberts/new-911-evidence/

[Sep 13, 2017] The New York Times photo article on the art student project inside the World Trade Center a couple of months before they were exploded, where the students were photographed with a set of boxes there in the NYC tower innards the boxes had a commercial stamp on them they were boxes with components of bomb detonators

Notable quotes:
"... And Zuesse breezily dismisses, the New York Times photo article on the 'art student project' inside the World Trade Center a couple of months before they were exploded, where the 'students' were photographed with a set of boxes there in the NYC tower innards the boxes had a commercial stamp on them they were boxes with components of bomb detonators ..."
Aug 19, 2017 | www.unz.com

Brabantian , Website August 19, 2017 at 2:24 pm GMT

This Eric Zuesse who has recently been insinuating himself as an 'alt media star', is a known Israeli propaganda agent who mixes some truth with big lies, Wikipedia-style, in Trojan Horse service for Zuesse's intel agency masters Zuesse tries to sound trendy-critical of the USA, but like other fakers he kicks the ball to Mossad at the key moments

Zuesse earned his Israeli-agent privileges long ago with a book attacking holocaust deniers, & Zuesse regularly pipes up supporting other intel agent shills in the media, always touting himself as 'fact-based' while disparaging others, Zuesse trying to paper over real truth with his too-many links

A big con game Zuesse performs along with others, is trying to sell the fairy tale that 9-11 was done by the evil 'Saudis', & that Israel had zero zilch nada to do with 11 Sep 2001 & the neo-con war aftermath Zuesse avoiding evidence such as rabbi's son & US Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff, releasing the arrested 'dancing Israels' of 9-11, & quickly putting them on an aeroplane back to Israel

And Zuesse breezily dismisses, the New York Times photo article on the 'art student project' inside the World Trade Center a couple of months before they were exploded, where the 'students' were photographed with a set of boxes there in the NYC tower innards the boxes had a commercial stamp on them they were boxes with components of bomb detonators

http://www.newnationalist.net/2017/03/02/world-trade-centers-infamous-91st-floor-israeli-art-student-project/

[Sep 11, 2017] The strange collapse of building 7

See also 9-11 Architects & Engineers - Solving the Mystery of WTC 7, Bill Cooper and the final card - YouTube
Also interesting Fracture Simulation Case Study of the WTC7 - Blender Fracture - YouTube
From physics the speed of collapse for the first 6 sec as well as the perfect symmetry of the collapse is smoking gun.
From purely technical standpoint the mystery of melted steal is another smoking gun; normal collapse of building can't generate energy enough of melted steel.
Destruction of evident is another smoking gun. NIST report has multiple weak points: in no way such a symmetrical and amazingly quick collapse can be result of a failure of single column. On such cases building usually crash sideways, not on their own footprint.
Notable quotes:
"... 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. ..."
"... 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 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. ..."
"... [AKA "Groovy Battle for Blair Mountain"] ..."
Sep 14, 2016 | www.unz.com

Erebus, September 14, 2016 at 10:40 am GMT

@Sam J. 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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5C5_dOEyAfk

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLqGRv7CQlc

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.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/b7_nofire.jpg

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

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

(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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnLcUxV1dPo

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. 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.

David Bauer, September 14, 2016 at 7:33 pm GMT

@Boris

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. 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.
Boris, September 14, 2016 at 8:24 pm GMT

@Stonehands 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?"

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?

Boris, September 14, 2016 at 8:37 pm GMT

@David Bauer

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.

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.

War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Groovy Battle for Blair Mountain"], September 14, 2016 at 8:59 pm GMT

@David Bauer 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. 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.

vinteuil, September 14, 2016 at 9:07 pm GMT

@Boris


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. Wow – what a thread.

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

It's really kind of awe-inspiring.

Erebus, September 15, 2016 at 6:33 am GMT

@Erebus

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. 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?

Erebus, September 15, 2016 at 4:39 am GMT

@Boris

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.

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.

[Aug 15, 2017] Solving 9-11 The Deception That Changed the World by Christopher Lee Bollyn

Aug 15, 2017 | www.amazon.com
John Jensen on October 29, 2012

5.0 out of 5 stars peeling back the onion of 9/11 deception

Verified Purchase 9/11 isn't over till it's over. Bollyn is a natural born skeptic (thank heavens) and has pursued leads others avoided. We Americans have been well trained to respect the Holocaust, especially in a country that considers itself Judeo-Christian. This is touchy territory, revered since WW2, especially by those of us living at the time who were touched by a loss in that war.

Bollyn shows no fear in entering the past and numerous aspects of history that have enabled the success of Israel, its growth and power. One can lose good friends by even discussing it or asking questions about "Zion". As a structural engineer who questioned the collapse of the buildings as I saw them falling that morning on tv, in bed with my wife and our son to follow this astounding event as it unfolded, the collapse didn't make sense to me, and the visuals were far too much like Hollywood special effects.

Bollyn carefully puts pieces of the puzzle together to fill in more of the "why" side of my concern. This is the sort of writing that could get a curious reporter "disappeared", even in America. What happened to the news reporters we have had in the past who asked those hard questions, for the sake of our America? I finished this book a couple weeks ago, and am now going to read it again. I need to let this all sink into my brain, get a new toehold on this ascent to peace and see where I am at this point.

Our illegal wars and war crimes continue, based on 9/11. It ain't over til it's over.

MidwestGuyUSA on November 8, 2015

Volumes of Credible Evidence to Warrant a Meaningful, World Investigation -- we need the Truth. Format: Paperback Verified Purchase After reading this book, it was like the world was turned upside down. Pieces of the puzzle seemingly fit together about what really happened to the World Trade Center. This book contains volumes of seemingly credible evidence and thus warrants a need for an investigation -- an investigation that is meaningful, objective and fearless. The truth -- whatever it is -- needs to be spoken and it seems apparent that this books speaks the truth. To gain an objective investigation, there needs to be a world body of many countries with persons of impeccable character to lead. Mr. Bollyn is a brave human being and should be commended for his efforts.

I also wanted to add this:

The one problem I see with Bollyn's book is that he tends to group all Israelis and Jews in the same category as those possibly responsible for 911, namely the Zionists. In other words, people should be careful not to judge all Jews as bad for the bad acts of the few. To group all Jews in the same category as the few Jewish extremist (Zionists) would be the same injustice as grouping all Muslims as being the same as the crazy terrorist-Islamic-extremists. It would be the same as condemning all the Germans for the acts of the Nazis during the Holocaust. But regarding 911, it is important that the truth be investigated and that the guilty be brought to justice. Read more Comment 12 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?

Matthew Brinfman on November 9, 2012

Solving 9-11 Proves a Conspiracy

The strongest evidence that 9-11 was an inside job comes from the highly sophisticated, military grade nano-thermites that were found in the rubble - in both exploded and unexploded form - immediately following the 9-11 attacks, as Christopher Bollyn astutely mentions in his book Solving 9-11; The Deception that Changed the World. This information was published in 2009 in a credible, peer-reviewed, scientific journal; the name of the study is: "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe" and can be accessed at: [...] - and has not been refuted by anyone in the scientific community, or anyone else for that matter, since.

For more information about the inherent weakness of the official conspiracy theory/story, read: "Dr. David Griscom Wins 9/11 Physics Debate. Not a Single Top Physicist is Willing to Defend the Official Story!" at: [...] .

Based on the density of nano-thermites found in the rubble, one of the lead scientists of the aforementioned study, Niels Harritt, has estimated that between 10 - 100 tons of nano-thermites were most likely used in the controlled demolitions of WTC 1, 2, and 7 (to account for the density of explosives found and documented in the rubble). In any event, too much nanothermite was found to have been brought in on airplanes.

Bollyn looks at Building security and discovers Marvin Bush was one of the principals of stratesec/securacom, information which was never widely reported in the cabal-controlled mainstream media, but is widely circulated on YouTube and is in fact public information!

He also looks at Israeli security companies connected to Israeli intelligence and makes some very interesting connections.

Bollyn also mentions 4,000 Israelis who worked in the twin towers who received text messages (for Israeli subscribers only) prior to the attacks telling them to leave the building. They all got out, except for perhaps two Israelis who perhaps did not get the message. This message, proving foreknowledge of the attacks, was not passed along to the authorities, when it could have saved thousands of lives, according to Bollyn.

Other Israelis, dubbed "The 5 Dancing Israelis" in numerous articles - not just Bollyn's book - were seen by eyewitnesses setting up camera equipment before the attacks - and after the attacks, they were seen celebrating joyously by eyewitnesses, also proving foreknowledge of 9/11. After being arrested, they received high-level clearance to be returned to Israel. Once home, safe from U.S. authorities, they later said they were there to "document the event" on Israeli television!

Bollyn also points out that the metal was quickly carted away before a proper investigation could be conducted, which violates the most basic protocol for any criminal investigation. Many of the individuals and numerous companies Bollyn scrutinizes in his book are interconnected, and by the time you get done reading his book, it becomes more than obvious there's been a cover up by the same supranational global elites who own our media as a way of preventing the average person from finding out about it.

Their ultimate goal is a one-world global dictatorship and 9-11 is a step toward that goal by getting us into Iraq and Afghanistan and using the fraudulent "War on Terror" to limit our personal freedoms via the Patriot Act. I would strongly recommend this book.

[Aug 15, 2017] Milk-Bar Clausewitzes, Bean Curd Napoleons

Aug 15, 2017 | www.unz.com

Diversity Heretic , August 3, 2017 at 6:55 pm GMT

Fred, you're a lot better on topics such as this than on Mexico.

There are probably "net assessers" in the military who have a reasonably good idea of the colossal risks that wars on such extended lines of communication would entail, and some people who have "war gamed" various scenarios and also have a reasonably good idea of the stupendous risks that the U.S. is running by taking on so many opponents, at such great distances, at once, none of which threaten any genuine vital interests of the United States. Unfortunately, the neocons who have hijacked U.S. diplomatic and military policy are probably impervious to such counsel.

A significant military defeat suffered by the U.S. (carriers going down with all hands, aircraft losses similar to those suffered by the Israelis in the 1973 war or large numbers of Americans killed or taken prisoner on the ground) might be the shock to the system that starts a revolution of some sort.

Anonymous , Disclaimer August 3, 2017 at 7:41 pm GMT

@Sean A long tern view of national security would mandate cutting China of from access to the US's technology and home market while forcing China into an arms race.The peril from Kim's ICBM nukes is economic. The Chinese fox has promised to use help with N. Korea and got access to the US in return--over and over again.

The efficacy of the Korean threat for China should be at an end, but I am afraid North Korean upping of the ante to the nuclear level in cahoots with China will yet again provide a rationale to overrule economic interests on the grounds of national security. China wins again and again and again. China has made clear that its help with North Korea is conditioned on the US not deploying missiles in South Korea and conducting military exercises with South Korea. These conditions are unacceptable to the US, and thus the US is using the failure of Chinese help as a pretext for further military entrenchment in the Korean peninsula and the establishment of missiles there.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/china-russia-combine-to-challenge-trump-on-north-korea/article/2627743

Russia and China agreed Tuesday that North Korea should halt missile tests and the United States should not deploy a missile shield or conduct large-scale military exercises with South Korea.

The joint agreement came after a meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping in Moscow and follows what the North Korean regime claims was a successful test of an intercontinental ballistic missile. The agreement was first reported by Reuters.

Grandpa Charlie , August 3, 2017 at 9:23 pm GMT

@Sean

As long as the PRC continues to exploit the supposed independence of the DPRK, the USA has the moral ability to declare war on the DPRK and attack in mass, or just to attack based on that the DPRK has already declared war on the USA.

Almost no one in the USA wants to call the spade a space in this business, so thank you, Sean.

Meanwhile, getting back to Fred's article, of the various choices for wars to be prosecuted by the USA, war with the DPRK has easily the best chances for a quick ending and successful conclusion. Think of the possible benefits for Trump, for the USA, and for the Korean people. USA could "get the job done" and then exit the peninsula for ever. China would likely be pleased to no longer have to deal with the most corrupt and cruel ruling class anywhere in this corrupt and cruel world (the Kim dynasty). Of course, there would be (or will be) the risk of world nuclear war. As there is anyway – I mean, if USA continues to do nothing, when would it start? when major cities in Japan are destroyed?

The commander of USAF in the Pacific has indicated that it's all ready to go. He didn't specify nukes or not, but probably not nukes. Anybody who knows the fighting spirit of the ROK military, knows that they could go north across the 38th, swiftly and effectively to occupy the North up to the border with the PRC. Not even the most clueless anti-USA journalist has ever claimed that ordinary Koreans of the North support the Kim dynasty. Yes, it's a choice that may go wrong. Or not. In any event, of the choices available, is this not the one with the least risk of annihilation and the greatest prospect of a benign conclusion?

Don't know if you agree with my thinking based on a situation that you have brought out into the open, but in any case, THANK YOU for being willing to write realistically about it.

Grandpa Charlie , August 3, 2017 at 9:40 pm GMT

@Anonymous The Kim-dynasty billionaire rulers of the North, being boundlessly greedy and arrogantly reckless, as is the nature of all billionaires, are saying that they are willing to talk only when the ROK (the only democratically government on the peninsula) surrenders its sovereignty by allowing the billionaire-government of the North to veto whatever defense arrangements the South finds it necessary to make. Is that a bad joke, or what?

Russia and China are cooperating these days, but would they really object. in the long run, if the USA blew up the North to leave it open to being welcomed into the ROK with all-Korea elections to follow? For one thing, the North is probably the most corrupt country in Asia and that corruption is certainly integrated into the corruption that plagues both China and Russia.

The key to pulling it off would have to be that Trump would need to understand the benefits of USA withdrawal from the peninsula – really from Asia. China and Russia would understand that benign situation as well. And it would secure the Donald of a place among the great "states people" of history. And the American people would be grateful (1) to see that, for once, we see some usefulness coming out of the gargantuan investment made in USA's military power, and, (2) that we are finally out of Asia – honorably. Even Senator McCain – who has been upset for so long, really only because he wants at some point to be able to say that we left on a WIN – even Senator McCain would cheer.

Grandpa Charlie , August 3, 2017 at 9:56 pm GMT

@Diversity Heretic Diversity Heretic,

"so many opponents at once" ????

Methinks, dear Heretic, that you have taken Fred's meaning off on a tangent? I assumed – and do assume – that the premise of Fred's article is that USA has several choices, among them being "DO NOTHING" and "DO ALL OF IT," but really the choices worth considering are to do which one of these? Because the "DO NOTHING" choice would probably end in disaster – for the American people, for the Korean people, for Russian people, for the world, and – oh yes – for the Donald, and even for those hollow greed machines that we call "neocons" supposing that they really are living beings and not the, you know, the man-size lizards.

Do them ALL and do them all AT ONCE ????? Are you crazy?

Do the one that has been utterly foisted on us, the one that is honorable, the one that has the best chance of success, in many respects but especially in regard to getting US out of Asia.

Anonymous , Disclaimer August 3, 2017 at 10:02 pm GMT

@Grandpa Charlie As long as the PRC continues to exploit the supposed independence of the DPRK, the USA has the moral ability to declare war on the DPRK and attack in mass, or just to attack based on that the DPRK has already declared war on the USA.

Almost no one in the USA wants to call the spade a space in this business, so thank you, Sean.

Meanwhile, getting back to Fred's article, of the various choices for wars to be prosecuted by the USA, war with the DPRK has easily the best chances for a quick ending and successful conclusion. Think of the possible benefits for Trump, for the USA, and for the Korean people. USA could "get the job done" and then exit the peninsula for ever. China would likely be pleased to no longer have to deal with the most corrupt and cruel ruling class anywhere in this corrupt and cruel world (the Kim dynasty). Of course, there would be (or will be) the risk of world nuclear war. As there is anyway - I mean, if USA continues to do nothing, when would it start? when major cities in Japan are destroyed?

The commander of USAF in the Pacific has indicated that it's all ready to go. He didn't specify nukes or not, but probably not nukes. Anybody who knows the fighting spirit of the ROK military, knows that they could go north across the 38th, swiftly and effectively to occupy the North up to the border with the PRC. Not even the most clueless anti-USA journalist has ever claimed that ordinary Koreans of the North support the Kim dynasty. Yes, it's a choice that may go wrong. Or not. In any event, of the choices available, is this not the one with the least risk of annihilation and the greatest prospect of a benign conclusion?

Don't know if you agree with my thinking based on a situation that you have brought out into the open, but in any case, THANK YOU for being willing to write realistically about it. You sound like Douglas MacArthur circa 1950:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/books/2014/12/15/a-christmas-far-from-home-an-epic-tale-of-courage-and-survival-during-the-korean-war/20260755/

U.S. Gen. Douglas MacArthur, drunk on public adulation from his service in World War II and his inspired amphibious invasion at Inchon earlier in 1950, bragged that the Korean War was over and that U.S. troops who had swept across most of North Korea would be home by that Christmas.

Grandpa Charlie , August 3, 2017 at 10:26 pm GMT

Too bad that it couldn't be done peacefully, as it was in the case of Germany. Yet and still, it would be, at long last, the conclusion to the defining Great War that began in 1914 and once Korea is reunified, ends approximately a century later.

Courage to imagine is what is needed now. And forgeddabout war with Iran: let Israel take that on, if they want. And forgeddabout war with Venezuela: let the billionaires of Columbia take that on, if they want. And what else was contemplated by Fred? Oh, yeah, Syria and Ukraine. Aren't we all sick and tired of hearing about such "CNN wars"? Bloody expensive way to bring up viewership! So that leaves, oh yes, the SCS idea of a naval war, except that we never did take up Vietnam's offer to serve as home port for the US Navy. So we would need to start there, with an alliance with Vietnam. But, really, we already have with Korea what might be with Vietnam – should have been already, if treasonous neocons did not rule in DC – so that isn't a real option, the "SCS war" at this time. Maybe with an alliance with Vietnam, it coulda shoulda, but it didn't. And anyway an alliance with Vietnam would have forestalled it in the first place.

That leaves what? The one option that makes sense: get rid of the corrupt and contemptible Kim-dynasty dictatorship of the DPRK.

Grandpa Charlie , August 4, 2017 at 6:26 am GMT

The Saker just about now (within the last less-than-a-day) posted a fine article examining the very question that we have been attempting to deal with here. Namely, of the various options for choosing the "best of all possible wars" – which would we choose.

As for Korea, the Saker's comments are cryptic – really subminimal. Here it is:

"Prevailing against Iran or the DPRK is clearly beyond the actual US military capabilities." -- The Saker

Well, that answers that or does it?

In any case, we really do need to insist on an answer to the question of what is the real relation between the PRC and the DPRK. Here in the American blogosphere we have fallen into the sloppy intellectual habit, probably acquired from MSM of all places – that the DPRK can be independent of Beijing, so that Beijing can calculate that it will not be exposed to any retaliation whatsoever regardles of what Pyongyang does, while at the same time we think somehow that any attack on the DPRK is, really, an attack on what amounts to a province of China. If you think about it, that is so insane or lame.

Even if – or especially if – the North of Korea is already Chinese territory, then we should definitely take advantage of the ambiguity, we should absolutely not fail to get at Beijing by destroying some targets within the North of Korea. And if the Kim dynasty of the DPRK is really independent of the PRC, then we should do everyone the favor of removing the Kim-dynasty tragi-comedy from the border of China, where it can only be a mortifying embarrassment to the CCP. Of course, in any case, we should avail ourselves of the opportunity presented to exit Asia while we still have some pride and a little, if not much, honor left.

Grandpa Charlie , August 4, 2017 at 6:30 am GMT

@Grandpa Charlie Here is the link to the Saker's overall excellent article:

http://www.unz.com/tsaker/the-end-of-the-wars-on-the-cheap-for-the-united-states/

restless94110 , August 4, 2017 at 6:54 am GMT

@Diversity Heretic I can't agree with you on all points of your comment.

Fred writes a bunch of nonsense when he writes about 9/11 of Mexico, but he's outrageously dead-on in his military writings.

The humiliation of the US military and of the US leadership whould start a revolution .of some sort. It would depend on the damage..

One thing is certain though: almost nobody in the United States understands the nature of our precarity, and no one is ready for any kind of defeat or worse.

restless94110 , August 4, 2017 at 7:02 am GMT

@Grandpa Charlie As long as the PRC continues to exploit the supposed independence of the DPRK, the USA has the moral ability to declare war on the DPRK and attack in mass, or just to attack based on that the DPRK has already declared war on the USA.

Almost no one in the USA wants to call the spade a space in this business, so thank you, Sean.

Meanwhile, getting back to Fred's article, of the various choices for wars to be prosecuted by the USA, war with the DPRK has easily the best chances for a quick ending and successful conclusion. Think of the possible benefits for Trump, for the USA, and for the Korean people. USA could "get the job done" and then exit the peninsula for ever. China would likely be pleased to no longer have to deal with the most corrupt and cruel ruling class anywhere in this corrupt and cruel world (the Kim dynasty). Of course, there would be (or will be) the risk of world nuclear war. As there is anyway - I mean, if USA continues to do nothing, when would it start? when major cities in Japan are destroyed?

The commander of USAF in the Pacific has indicated that it's all ready to go. He didn't specify nukes or not, but probably not nukes. Anybody who knows the fighting spirit of the ROK military, knows that they could go north across the 38th, swiftly and effectively to occupy the North up to the border with the PRC. Not even the most clueless anti-USA journalist has ever claimed that ordinary Koreans of the North support the Kim dynasty. Yes, it's a choice that may go wrong. Or not. In any event, of the choices available, is this not the one with the least risk of annihilation and the greatest prospect of a benign conclusion?

Don't know if you agree with my thinking based on a situation that you have brought out into the open, but in any case, THANK YOU for being willing to write realistically about it. You are diluded. America has no moral "ability" to do anything. That's a violation of international law and it is exactly what the Nazis were tried for in Nuremberg after WWII ended.

The DPRK has not declared war against the United States either, so you are imagining things for a 2nd time.

Let's just call a spade a spade, shall we?

Getting back to Fred's article, did you even read it? An attack on NK would be catastrophic. That's what Fred wrote. And all you got out of it was that of all of the choices to go to war for absolutely no reason, the best choice would be to war on Korea?

And you reason? That it would be the most likely to be the quickest and most effective? And this is exactly what Fred said is the problem with those think militarily about all this: they think and have thought it would be so quick and so easy, and so surgical.

And you actually read Fred's article? What parts of his article did you read?

Are you senile? What are you talking about, Grampa?

restless94110 , August 4, 2017 at 7:08 am GMT

@Grandpa Charlie The Kim-dynasty billionaire rulers of the North, being boundlessly greedy and arrogantly reckless, as is the nature of all billionaires, are saying that they are willing to talk only when the ROK (the only democratically government on the peninsula) surrenders its sovereignty by allowing the billionaire-government of the North to veto whatever defense arrangements the South finds it necessary to make. Is that a bad joke, or what?

Russia and China are cooperating these days, but would they really object. in the long run, if the USA blew up the North to leave it open to being welcomed into the ROK with all-Korea elections to follow? For one thing, the North is probably the most corrupt country in Asia ... and that corruption is certainly integrated into the corruption that plagues both China and Russia.

The key to pulling it off would have to be that Trump would need to understand the benefits of USA withdrawal from the peninsula - really from Asia. China and Russia would understand that benign situation as well. And it would secure the Donald of a place among the great "states people" of history. And the American people would be grateful (1) to see that, for once, we see some usefulness coming out of the gargantuan investment made in USA's military power, and, (2) that we are finally out of Asia - honorably. Even Senator McCain - who has been upset for so long, really only because he wants at some point to be able to say that we left on a WIN - even Senator McCain would cheer. You lead off your reply claiming that for the leader of North Korea it's all about money. I did not realize that you had some kind of personal knowledge of the mind and motives of the Kim dynasty. Do you have a weekly card game with the Leader?

In other words, you don't know what you are talking about, Grandpa.

So why are you talking? Is that a bad joke, or what?

You are the veritable definition of "arm-chair warrior."

You ask a rhetorical question: would Russia and China really object?

Gramps, they are objecting right now. Are you saying, would they also really object if we bombed all of the NKorean people killing millions of them?

Are you really saying that?

Grampa, I do not know what kind of medications you are on. But you need different ones. If addled dilusional thinking are the side effects of your medication regimen, please see your doctor as soon as possible.

In the meantime, why are you infecting a reasonable and serious assessment of the likely utter failure of any military action by the United States with your visions of mayhem and death?

I don't understand why anyone would want that for anyone on Earth. There is no justification for that. It is a war crime. It is against international law.

restless94110 , August 4, 2017 at 7:16 am GMT

@Grandpa Charlie Your assumption that Fred's article was about choices, as if the United States was in a supermarket looking at cuts of meat for dinner tonight, is false.

For one thing, the do nothing choice is the only choice that might not end in disaster for all those entites you listed in your comment. Might. And this is clearly what Fred has written.

And because you have mis-read Fred, you jump to: it has to be one of them. So you pick what you say is the "honorable" choice?

What is honorable about messing with a country that is basically saying: stop doing your war games all around our country all the time, remove your troops from out Penninsula, leave us alone.

Other countries have nuclear capability, grampa. And still others will get nuclear capability in the future.

North Korea has seen and still sees (in Venezuela) that the US does regime change. So, why would any sane leader ever give up nuclear weapons? The US is demanding that they do just that, claiming (some of US people are, while other US people are not) that the US will not then affect regime change.

The United States has made a feature length Hollywood movie about North Korean regime change!!!!!

What have you been smoking, Grampa?

restless94110 , August 4, 2017 at 7:24 am GMT

@Grandpa Charlie As we say in New York: look at you.

Saying that the Kim dynasty is comtemptible. So the Deep State warmongers in the United States that are attempting a soft/hard coup on a duly elected United States President are not equally contemptible?

Why are you looking to another country when your own country is so completely corrupt and in such serious disarray?

What kind of person would sit around and rattle on and on about some place that they have no business even thinking about.

Wasn't it George Washington who said that foreign entanglements and standing armies would be the death of the Republic?

What part of that message are you not undertanding?

P.S., it is not "different" now, Gramps, just because it is 2017 and not 1780. The Founders knew that no matter what age of time a Republic happens to be in, it is utterly stupid and fatal to get involved in foreign entanglements and keep standing armies.

And luckily, as Fred has pointed out, this lesson has been shown t be true right now in the 21st century where we have lost or stalemated (which is the same as a loss) in 6 countries and working on 2 more losses. Maybe 3.

You can see it right in front of your eyes, Grampa!!! Are you blind as well as diluded?

restless94110 , August 4, 2017 at 7:28 am GMT

@Grandpa Charlie Listen to the Saker.

It is not our provence to insist on anything about China's relationship to North Korea. It is not our business.

I am literally watching a diluded fool (you) rationalize why the US should commit war crimes against North Korea.

None of your rationalizations are valid. All of them are violations of international law and would do untold damage not only to world populations but to the reputation of the United States.

What you are rationalizing would destroy the United States' stature in the world forever.

Why would you want to do that?

restless94110 , August 4, 2017 at 7:30 am GMT

@restless94110 The first line of my reply should have read:

I can't agree with you MORE on all points of your comment.

Simplyamazed , August 4, 2017 at 8:01 am GMT

@Grandpa Charlie You assume that those left out just sit there and don't see an opportunity to take advantage of the situation. The kind of unexpected consequences Fred is warning about. Then things spiral out of control, like World War One, for instance.

anonymous , Disclaimer August 4, 2017 at 9:34 am GMT

@Grandpa Charlie Please reflect on your habitual use of "we" in reference to the USG. People who self-identify with their rulers are essential for the warmongers. Isn't that why Americans are subjected to camouflage uniforms and "thank you for your service" spectacles at athletic events?

dearieme , August 4, 2017 at 9:37 am GMT

@Sean "A long tern view of national security would mandate cutting China of from access to the US's technology " How? Have you visited any labs recently?

bossel , August 4, 2017 at 9:50 am GMT

Germans thought that World War I would be be a quick war of movement, over in a few weeks.

Not really. That was more propaganda than anything else. The military leadership were IIRC well aware of what could happen. Attacking France with pretty much all they had & trying to finish it quickly, so that resources would be freed to deal with Russia. That was the plan, but they already expected a prolonged & bloody conflict if that failed.

the Chinese, only a generation or so removed from living hard,

If you think that Chinese millennials are any hardier than those in the US, you clearly haven't been in China for quite a long time.

JL , August 4, 2017 at 9:57 am GMT

This is a fantastic article that really distills the whole, seemingly mindless, mess that is US foreign policy into a distinct and understandable format. US relative decline is now on plain display for the entire world to see. While in possession of still considerable force, the US now faces a decision: save itself, or save the empire. It doesn't have the resource for both.

Sunbeam , August 4, 2017 at 11:47 am GMT

@Grandpa Charlie You know your analysis of a possible North Korea conflict has an assumption build into it.

That the US and South Korea (and are they really on board with a shooting war) conduct an offensive attack on North Korea (and how that goes well we'd have to see).

Meanwhile China does nothing.

See any possible things that might go wrong here? Even if North Korea isn't their favorite client state in the whole world, they might have some interest in keeping the US from installing a new regime. Maybe.

And as for what China could do to throw a wrench into this whole thing well I can think of lots.

What about you?

Steve Emmott , August 4, 2017 at 1:12 pm GMT

North Korea has a large submarine fleet which never seems to get a mention, but which is obviously significant when you recall this..

https://www.vox.com/world/2017/4/18/15345110/us-aircraft-carrier-north-korea-not

Anonymous , Disclaimer August 4, 2017 at 2:16 pm GMT

@Grandpa Charlie Tough talk from someone who is living in their moms basement and has no skin in the game.

What you are really saying is that the war with N Korea wouldn't affect you.

No worries about our soldiers who are in firing range, on land, and sea.

The quick war scenario is a myth. N Korea saw what happened to Libya after Gadaffii fell. Their people are being sold as slaves now. Better to go in a blazing glory than be a slave.

[Aug 14, 2017] Why the government rushed to dispose all the evident from the crime scene. Especially for flight 93

Notable quotes:
"... 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 ..."
"... 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. ..."
"... 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 ..."
"... 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. ..."
"... 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. ..."
"... All you need to know is that building #7 fell as if only AIR held it up for roughly 108 feet. ..."
"... Keep in mind that lots of evidence already suggests that there was no plane in Pentagon. ..."
"... 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? ..."
"... 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. ..."
"... 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 ..."
"... More likely, it [Building 7] 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. ..."
"... 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. ..."
"... 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." ..."
"... 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. ..."
"... 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. ..."
September 15, 2016

Rurik > , September 15, 2016 at 1:07 pm GMT

@Stonehands 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'.

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKKtAlK2Lh0

Rurik > , September 15, 2016 at 1:51 pm GMT

@Erebus


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.

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.

Rurik > , September 15, 2016 at 3:05 pm GMT

@Sparkon 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--

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GY0yWXGaKs

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bq1-BCeNcm0

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

Ron Unz > , September 15, 2016 at 3:15 pm GMT

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

alexander > , September 15, 2016 at 3:26 pm GMT

@L.K 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? 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.

Rurik > , September 15, 2016 at 4:17 pm GMT

@utu "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.

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?

Anonymous Smith > , September 15, 2016 at 4:53 pm GMT

@Ron Unz 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... 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.

Sam J. > , September 15, 2016 at 5:31 pm GMT

@Boris


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. 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

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

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.

alexander > , September 15, 2016 at 5:35 pm GMT

@Ron Unz 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... 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.

Sam J. > , September 15, 2016 at 6:00 pm GMT

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.

Sam Shama > , September 15, 2016 at 6:31 pm GMT

@utu "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. [ 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.

Rurik > , September 15, 2016 at 6:37 pm GMT

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

Boris > , September 15, 2016 at 7:44 pm GMT

@Sam J. 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

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

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.

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.

utu > , September 15, 2016 at 7:53 pm GMT

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?

Jonathan Revusky > , Website September 15, 2016 at 10:11 pm GMT

@Ron Unz 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...

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!

Jonathan Revusky > , Website September 15, 2016 at 10:23 pm GMT

@utu

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.

... ... ...

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?

Jonathan Revusky > , Website September 15, 2016 at 10:48 pm GMT

@Rurik

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GY0yWXGaKs

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bq1-BCeNcm0

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

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-rfk-biWRz44/U635N8lZP4I/AAAAAAAAAMY/wXhoFBjg5_c/s1600/M.jpg

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

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.

alexander > , September 15, 2016 at 10:49 pm GMT

@Jonathan Revusky

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! 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 ?

Jonathan Revusky > , Website September 15, 2016 at 10:52 pm GMT

@Jonathan Revusky


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!

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.

Erebus > , September 15, 2016 at 11:02 pm GMT

@Ron Unz 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...

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.

Erebus > , September 15, 2016 at 11:26 pm GMT

@alexander 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 ?

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 [Building 7] 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.

Ron Unz > , September 15, 2016 at 11:38 pm GMT

@utu "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.

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.

Ron Unz > , September 15, 2016 at 11:40 pm GMT

@Erebus


...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.

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.

utu > , September 15, 2016 at 11:48 pm GMT

@Jonathan Revusky


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?

"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.

Rurik > , September 16, 2016 at 12:15 am GMT

@Erebus

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.

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

Rurik > , September 16, 2016 at 12:19 am GMT

@utu "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.

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

utu > , September 16, 2016 at 12:25 am GMT

@Ron Unz


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. "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.

Rurik > , September 16, 2016 at 12:28 am GMT

@Boris


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.

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

Sparkon [AKA "SP"] > , September 16, 2016 at 12:29 am GMT

T he 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–

JG > , September 16, 2016 at 12:32 am GMT

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

The story was so outlandish though that I think it was just someone trying to discredit the 9/11 truth movement.

Maybe someone can chime in with a credible explanation. 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.

utu > , September 16, 2016 at 12:54 am GMT

@Rurik

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 "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.

utu > , September 16, 2016 at 1:01 am GMT

@Sparkon

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-- "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.

James N. Kennett > , September 16, 2016 at 2:30 am GMT

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

Jonathan Revusky > , Website September 16, 2016 at 6:56 am GMT

@Ron Unz


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.

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.

Jonathan Revusky > , Website September 16, 2016 at 7:40 am GMT

@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. 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.

"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.

!--file:///F:/Public_html/Skeptics/Political_skeptic/Corporatism/National_security_state/Intelligence_services/False_flag_operations/mistery_of_building7_collapse.shtml-->

[Aug 14, 2017] No planes hypotheses is weak, but still explain certain parts of evidence, especially for Pentagon hit. This was probably a missile not a plane.

US Army General Whistle Blower Reveals Facts of 9-11 World Trade Center-Pentagon Attacks - YouTube This is a very impressive video.
Here is another adherent of this hypotheses in modified form: what hit the second tower was probably Tomahawk missile (it has suitable subsonic speed of 500 miles per hour that was registed that day and that was too high for Being flow that low) , not a passenger plane: What The Hell Is That! - 9-11 3D Flight Analysis 2016 - YouTube
Notable quotes:
"... 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. ..."
Sep 15, 2016 | www.unz.com

utu , September 15, 2016 at 3:34 pm GMT

@Ron Unz 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... "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.

Rurik , September 15, 2016 at 4:17 pm GMT

@utu "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.

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?

Anonymous Smith , September 15, 2016 at 4:53 pm GMT

@Ron Unz 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... 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.

Sam J. , September 15, 2016 at 5:31 pm GMT

... ... ...

WTC7 in Freefall: No Longer Controversial

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

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.

alexander , September 15, 2016 at 5:35 pm GMT

@Ron Unz 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... 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.

Sam J. , September 15, 2016 at 6:00 pm GMT

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.

Sam Shama , September 15, 2016 at 6:31 pm GMT

@utu "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. [ 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 realize 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.

Rurik , September 15, 2016 at 6:37 pm GMT

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

Boris , September 15, 2016 at 7:44 pm GMT

@Sam J. 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

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

... ... ...

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

utu , September 15, 2016 at 7:53 pm GMT

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?

Boris , September 15, 2016 at 7:57 pm GMT

@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. 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.

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.

Jonathan Revusky , Website September 15, 2016 at 10:11 pm GMT

@Ron Unz 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...

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!

Jonathan Revusky , Website September 15, 2016 at 10:23 pm GMT

@utu 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?

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?

Jonathan Revusky , Website September 15, 2016 at 10:48 pm GMT

@Rurik


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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GY0yWXGaKs

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bq1-BCeNcm0

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

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-rfk-biWRz44/U635N8lZP4I/AAAAAAAAAMY/wXhoFBjg5_c/s1600/M.jpg

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

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.

alexander , September 15, 2016 at 10:49 pm GMT

@Jonathan Revusky


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! 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 ?

Jonathan Revusky , Website September 15, 2016 at 10:52 pm GMT

@Jonathan Revusky


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!

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.

Erebus , September 15, 2016 at 11:02 pm GMT

@Ron Unz 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...

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.

Erebus , September 15, 2016 at 11:26 pm GMT

@alexander 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 ?

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.

Ron Unz , September 15, 2016 at 11:38 pm GMT

@utu "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.

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.

Ron Unz , September 15, 2016 at 11:40 pm GMT

@Erebus


...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.

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.

utu , September 15, 2016 at 11:48 pm GMT

@Jonathan Revusky

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? "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.

Boris , September 15, 2016 at 11:59 pm GMT

@Rurik

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

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.

Rurik , September 16, 2016 at 12:15 am GMT

@Erebus


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.

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

utu , September 16, 2016 at 12:25 am GMT

@Ron Unz

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. "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.

Rurik , September 16, 2016 at 12:28 am GMT

@Boris


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.

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

Sparkon [AKA "SP"] , September 16, 2016 at 12:29 am GMT

T he 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–

JG , September 16, 2016 at 12:32 am GMT

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

The story was so outlandish though that I think it was just someone trying to discredit the 9/11 truth movement.

Maybe someone can chime in with a credible explanation. 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.

Sam J. , September 16, 2016 at 12:40 am GMT

" 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.

James N. Kennett , September 16, 2016 at 2:30 am GMT

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

Rurik , September 16, 2016 at 1:25 pm GMT

@Sparkon T he 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--

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

Rurik , September 16, 2016 at 1:29 pm GMT

@JG WTC 7 was planned long before 9/11 for demolition. WTC leasee, Larry Silverstein said in an early interview, "The building was unsafe due to fire, so decided to "pull it" (blow it up)." A demolition takes weeks to plan and prepare. Why blow up his leased building? He received $4.65 billion insurance for all of WTC! Good enough reason? The fact that one building was demolished throws suspicion on the whole "terrorists flew planes" idea.

Pilots have already stated that airliners could not have hit WTC 1 & 2 at 500 mph, or the Pentagon at such low altitude.

Fire from kerosene ("aviation fuel") cannot melt steel. Aluminium and plastic fuselage and wings cannot destroy heavy steel beams. So, no airliners hit these three buildings.

The footage and later "evidence" - wrong jet engine placed near WTC 1 - was faked. Rumsfeld in an early interview, later removed from the 'net, said a missile hit the Pentagon, where only one small jet engine, but no landing gear, baggage, human remains, was found.

In sum, an audacious coup to so stun the US public (already numbed by their controlled media) to believe ME terrorists had attacked them that they would support war in the ME. However, the perpetrators failed to reckon on an alert group with internet access to dissect in fine detail this event and unravel it.

Nevertheless, 9/11 was a "success", allowing the US to wage war across the ME and Africa, draining social resources from a population too stunned to protest about their worsening standard of living.

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

Rurik , September 16, 2016 at 2:09 pm GMT

@Jonathan Revusky

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. 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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vU-nMsyXP0s

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Os37Ruc430

great comment JR

Erebus , September 16, 2016 at 2:15 pm GMT

@Rurik

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

https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-FkH60hn3iC4/U7pUIwxaV_I/AAAAAAAAAPI/E3wlHRf5fFE/s1600/WTC1+leftwing+01.png

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).

http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/drugoi/484155/5036379/5036379_original.jpg

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

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.

utu , September 16, 2016 at 3:25 pm GMT

@Jonathan Revusky

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. 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.

alexander , September 16, 2016 at 5:23 pm GMT

... ... ...

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. 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" ?.

Rurik , September 16, 2016 at 7:43 pm GMT

@Erebus

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.

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..

David Bauer , September 17, 2016 at 11:49 am GMT

@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.] 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".

Stephen R. Diamond , Website September 18, 2016 at 6:52 pm GMT

@David Bauer 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". 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?]

!--file:///F:/Public_html/Skeptics/Political_skeptic/Corporatism/National_security_state/Intelligence_services/False_flag_operations/mistery_of_building7_collapse.shtml-->

[Aug 14, 2017] Possible role of Israel in 9/11

Those 5 dancing Israelis is a strong evidence against Israel...
See also GENIUS EXPLAINS WITH FACTS WHY AND HOW ISRAEL DID 9 11 - YouTube
Notable quotes:
"... 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. ..."
"... Why did the government destroy the evidence b4 it could be examined, in direct violation of federal law regarding crime scene protocol?" ..."
"... You were asked a serious question, don't be a smart ass. Those "scraps" were evidence from a crime scene. ..."
"... Don't you think the alphabet agencies anonymously plant whacky theories, to discredit those who seek to oppose warmongering? ..."
Sep 13, 2016 | www.unz.com

L.K , September 13, 2016 at 5:05 pm GMT

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:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jwieqSNpnM

@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.

L.K , September 13, 2016 at 5:20 pm GMT

@Ron Unz

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"... 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.

L.K , September 14, 2016 at 4:58 am GMT

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?

Jonathan Revusky , Website September 14, 2016 at 8:46 am GMT

@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?

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:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jwieqSNpnM

@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.

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?

NoseytheDuke , September 14, 2016 at 9:36 am GMT

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.

vetran , September 14, 2016 at 12:12 pm GMT

@War for Blair Mountain Open Access Journals are the problem...greedy...dishonest...predatory. The usual suspects: Bentham....Hindawi...Nova Science.

Go google this:Nature...Investigating Journals:The dark side of publishing by Declan Butler.

The Jones-Harrit-Pace nanothermite paper would have been rejected by every major peer reviewed spectroscopy journal.

"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)

Rurik , September 14, 2016 at 2:14 pm GMT

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMQWzdc175A

vetran , September 14, 2016 at 2:59 pm GMT

@Boris I am a big Kubrik fan, but I find A Clockwork Orange and The Shining superior to 2001.

Wait. Those two movies involve human beings having their free will taken over by outside forces: the Ludovico technique and the spirits of the Overlook hotel, respectively. You may be onto something here...

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?

Erebus , September 14, 2016 at 3:08 pm GMT

@Rurik

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMQWzdc175A

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.

Rurik , September 14, 2016 at 3:40 pm GMT

@Erebus

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.

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?

Stonehands , September 14, 2016 at 5:05 pm GMT

@Boris

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. 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?"

Stonehands , September 14, 2016 at 11:29 pm GMT

@Boris

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? "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.

L.K , September 14, 2016 at 11:56 pm GMT

@Rurik

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? 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.

L.K , September 15, 2016 at 12:17 am GMT

@Rurik

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? 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.

L.K , September 15, 2016 at 12:32 am GMT

@Rurik

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? 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 the United 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."

Boris , September 15, 2016 at 12:42 am GMT

@Stonehands "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.

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.

Stonehands , September 15, 2016 at 2:58 am GMT

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'.

Jane Claire , September 15, 2016 at 3:27 am GMT

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.

Jonathan Revusky , Website September 15, 2016 at 11:28 am GMT

@vinteuil Wow - what a thread.

Every swivel-eyed, frothing-at-the-mouth loon in the vicinity vs. Boris. It's really kind of awe-inspiring. 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!

Jonathan Revusky , Website September 15, 2016 at 12:11 pm GMT

@Erebus

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...

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.

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.

Rurik , September 15, 2016 at 12:55 pm GMT

@L.K 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. 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

Rurik , September 15, 2016 at 1:07 pm GMT

@Stonehands 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'.

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKKtAlK2Lh0

Rurik , September 15, 2016 at 3:05 pm GMT

@Sparkon 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--

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GY0yWXGaKs

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bq1-BCeNcm0

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

Ron Unz , September 15, 2016 at 3:15 pm GMT

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

alexander , September 15, 2016 at 3:26 pm GMT

@L.K 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? 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.

Max Havelaar , September 16, 2016 at 9:29 pm GMT

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

Don't you think the alphabet agencies anonymously plant whacky theories, to discredit those who seek to oppose warmongering?

NoseytheDuke , September 17, 2016 at 12:57 am GMT

@Rurik

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 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.

Anonymous Smith , September 17, 2016 at 4:23 am GMT

@NoseytheDuke 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. 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!

[Aug 14, 2017] Don't you think the alphabet agencies anonymously plant whacky theories, to discredit those who seek to oppose warmongering? 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.

Notable quotes:
"... 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. ..."
"... You don't have to guess on this. You can calculate the amount of force exerted on the structure. F=ma. It's plenty. ..."
"... 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. ..."
"... Don't you think the alphabet agencies anonymously plant whacky theories, to discredit those who seek to oppose warmongering? ..."
"... [AKA "Groovy Battle for Blair Mountain"] ..."
"... [AKA "Groovy Battle for Blair Mountain"] ..."
"... 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. ..."
"... 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 ..."
Aug 14, 2017 | www.unz.com

September 16, 2016

Jonathan Revusky > , Website September 16, 2016 at 8:48 am GMT

@utu "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.

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.

Sam J. > , September 16, 2016 at 12:46 pm GMT

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.

Rurik > , September 16, 2016 at 1:22 pm GMT

@Jonathan Revusky

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. 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..

Rurik > , September 16, 2016 at 1:25 pm GMT

@Sparkon T he 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--

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

Rurik > , September 16, 2016 at 1:29 pm GMT

@JG WTC 7 was planned long before 9/11 for demolition. WTC leasee, Larry Silverstein said in an early interview, "The building was unsafe due to fire, so decided to "pull it" (blow it up)." A demolition takes weeks to plan and prepare. Why blow up his leased building? He received $4.65 billion insurance for all of WTC! Good enough reason? The fact that one building was demolished throws suspicion on the whole "terrorists flew planes" idea.

Pilots have already stated that airliners could not have hit WTC 1 & 2 at 500 mph, or the Pentagon at such low altitude.

Fire from kerosene ("aviation fuel") cannot melt steel. Aluminium and plastic fuselage and wings cannot destroy heavy steel beams. So, no airliners hit these three buildings.

The footage and later "evidence" - wrong jet engine placed near WTC 1 - was faked. Rumsfeld in an early interview, later removed from the 'net, said a missile hit the Pentagon, where only one small jet engine, but no landing gear, baggage, human remains, was found.

In sum, an audacious coup to so stun the US public (already numbed by their controlled media) to believe ME terrorists had attacked them that they would support war in the ME. However, the perpetrators failed to reckon on an alert group with internet access to dissect in fine detail this event and unravel it.
Nevertheless, 9/11 was a "success", allowing the US to wage war across the ME and Africa, draining social resources from a population too stunned to protest about their worsening standard of living.

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

Rurik > , September 16, 2016 at 2:09 pm GMT

@Jonathan Revusky

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. 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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vU-nMsyXP0s

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Os37Ruc430

great comment JR

Rurik > , September 16, 2016 at 2:12 pm GMT

@Boris Yes, but you thought Al Franken was being serious. Who cares what a washed up Nazi who can't think straight says? now Al Franken in a "washed up Nazi"?

seek help son

Erebus > , September 16, 2016 at 2:15 pm GMT

@Rurik

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

https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-FkH60hn3iC4/U7pUIwxaV_I/AAAAAAAAAPI/E3wlHRf5fFE/s1600/WTC1+leftwing+01.png

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).

http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/drugoi/484155/5036379/5036379_original.jpg

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

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.

utu > , September 16, 2016 at 3:25 pm GMT

@Jonathan Revusky

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. 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.

Boris > , September 16, 2016 at 4:50 pm GMT

@Erebus

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.

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.

alexander > , September 16, 2016 at 5:23 pm GMT

@Jonathan Revusky

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" ?.

Rurik > , September 16, 2016 at 7:43 pm GMT

@Erebus

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.

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..

vinteuil > , September 16, 2016 at 8:31 pm GMT

@Jonathan Revusky 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! 324/19!

Max Havelaar > , September 16, 2016 at 9:29 pm GMT

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

https://youtu.be/K7mDXHn_byA?t=2716

NoseytheDuke > , September 17, 2016 at 12:57 am GMT

@Rurik

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 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.

Stephen R. Diamond > , Website September 17, 2016 at 2:42 am GMT

@Rurik

What do truthers say about the Pentagon attack? Was that controlled demolition too?
you can always tell a shit eater by their giggly snark

http://www.sondrakistan.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Pajamaboy-e1451829968961.jpg It was a serious question.

Anonymous Smith > , September 17, 2016 at 4:23 am GMT

@NoseytheDuke 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. 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!

Stephen R. Diamond > , Website September 17, 2016 at 4:44 am GMT

@Stephen R. Diamond It was a serious question. 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.]

NoseytheDuke > , September 17, 2016 at 10:11 am GMT

No luck finding any consensus on the net? Shock and horror! Try thinking for yourself.

Jonathan Revusky > , Website September 17, 2016 at 11:08 am GMT

@Stephen R. Diamond It was a serious question.

It was a serious question.

No, it wasn't. Stop being such a shit eater.

David Bauer > , September 17, 2016 at 11:49 am GMT

@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.]

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".

Stephen R. Diamond > , Website September 18, 2016 at 6:52 pm GMT

@David Bauer 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". 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?]

Stephen R. Diamond > , Website September 18, 2016 at 7:21 pm GMT

@Boris 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. 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.

Jonathan Revusky > , Website September 20, 2016 at 5:50 pm GMT

@Stephen R. Diamond 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.

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?

NoseytheDuke > , September 13, 2016 at 2:30 am GMT

On a related matter .

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-untold-financial-story-of-911-bailing-out-alan-greenspans-legacy-billions-of-financial-dealings-by-the-fed-in-immediate-wake-of-911/5545246

Stephen R. Diamond > , Website September 13, 2016 at 2:37 am GMT

@Boris

To make a long story short, NIST, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, has been forced to admit that for 2.25 seconds WTC7 (which, by the way, was not hit by any aircraft on that day), was collapsing a free-fall acceleration. This is only possible if 8 floors of this huge buildings were removed instantly and symmetrically.
Okay, this is a specific claim that is either true or false and The Saker points to a specific source, even a specific figure and page number (thanks!). Let's check:
In Stage 2, the north face descended at gravitational acceleration, as the buckled columns provided negligible support to the upper portion of the north face .
NIST is very clear here that they are referring to "the north face" of WT7. The Saker and others infer that this means the entire building. Is that justified?

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkOGkdNq13k

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

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

Substituting the entire building for what the NIST calls "the north face" is not justified and ignores the NIST description of the collapse in the very same source. Sorry, but the NIST did not "admit" anything here and it appears that The Saker is simply misreading the source. Revealing that there are no replies to the devastating point. My experience is that when pinned down on a specific argument, they change the subject. Confirmed here.

joe webb > , September 13, 2016 at 2:37 am GMT

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.

jb > , September 13, 2016 at 3:15 am GMT

@NoseytheDuke Perhaps some Prozac might help with your depression. As to this site and what Ron Unz chooses to publish, if you disapprove you might consider not visiting which might also be helpful in treating your depression. Articles written by the Saker along with Phillip Giraldi and others frequently attract the most commenters. The articles concerning 9/11 certainly do and the mindless name callers are usually shrieking their support of the patently false official account of events. Anybody can say anything.

I could declare that the "official story" of the moon landing was "patently false," and demand that you prove -- to my satisfaction! -- that I was wrong. You would of course fail, and I would take your failure as proof that I was right. If I could gather a fringe of crackpots around me, we could start quoting each other, and that would be further proof. We could declare ourselves to be a vast legion of experts, and assert that we had already disproved the official story beyond any reasonable doubt, and that all who disagreed were either delusional or part of the conspiracy. We could do all of those things.

What we would not be able to do is win any real acceptance for our lunacy! Even the author of this article is forced to acknowledge that your movement has "mostly failed" in that regard. There is a reason for that. You can pretend otherwise, but the reason you remain on the fringe, and will continue to remain on the fringe, is that with very few exceptions, every serious person with any knowledge or expertise in the matter considers you all to be a pack of fools .

What you can possibly do, unfortunately, is discredit other serious people who are associated with this site. And this, quite reasonably, makes me sad.

L.K > , September 13, 2016 at 3:50 am GMT

@Anonymous Smith Judy Wood is a disinformation operative planted by the US government in order to discredit the 9/11 truth movement. Her "theory" was discredited 10 mins. after she first appeared. There are MANY disinformation operatives in the "Truther" movement...proceed with caution!

If you want to learn more about how and why the buildings came down on 9/11 search: architects and engineers for 9/11 truth. That's a safe place to start. Anonymous Smith:

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

Exactly.

Wizard of Oz > , September 13, 2016 at 3:57 am GMT

@AnonAussie So Wizard - I presume you go with the utterly implausible official theory?
Here it is as a reminder: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yuC_4mGTs98 Thanks for reminding me of that amusing YouTube skit.

I have no dogs in any of the related US fights. If 9/11 really was the hypothetical Pearl Harbour (but USIsraeli manufactured on a truther view) which seems to be a genuine part of the 1997-8 PNAC doc then I am pleased that John Howard – who was in DC in walking distance from the Pentagon – only got us enough involved in Iraq to lose one soldier (who actually shot himself). I was never for the Iraq invasion but what Australia should have done is arguable.

In retrospect I would hope that I might have formed a view against invading Afghanistan too. Just bombing the Taliban until they gave up or got rid of bin Laden would have made more sense.

So, where am I at? I can just about put together a consistent account of what happened if one assumes that Cheney and co were ruthless traitors and ideologues. But I am far from persuadedd that the reality was other than that some Al Qaeda connected or inspired individual or group conspired to put together four teams equipped to hijack four planes one morning in the NE of the US and crash them into symbolically and/or practical symbols or institutions of US wealth and power with many expected deaths.

Most, though not all, truthers are fruitcakes who at best just like raising their voices in the manner of the pub bore to keep up a reputation they hope they have for heterodoxy. Thus Rurik, who seems to be a successful builder/developer with some knowledge of metal and other structures exhibits the confident assertiveness and decisiveness which may well go with business success but doesn't add up to a row of beans when, probably relying on what he read and saw 8 or 10 years ago, he writes of "all the laws of physics and structural engineering". And he's not one of the true nutters! I think CalDre is the only truther commenter that seems to be able to give serious doubt a fighting chance by making his hypotheses consistent and not depending on something totally balmy like CGI in lieu of actual aircraft.

Stonehands > , September 13, 2016 at 4:27 am GMT

@War for Blair Mountain Stonehands

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

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

But more importantly, I have followed the scientific debate with 9/11 Truthers for 15 f....g years...gave 'em a fair hearing...and have come to the conclusion that they are psychopathic treasonous liars...they have nasty-malignant-psychopathic intent and motive.... I don't need to know "how" the buildings came down- to know the official version is a pack of lies.

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

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

P.S.

Don't you think the alphabet agencies anonymously plant whacky theories, to discredit those who seek to oppose warmongering?

Wizard of Oz > , September 13, 2016 at 4:42 am GMT

@NoseytheDuke Shortly after 9/11 the Taliban offered to surrender OBL on condition that evidence was provided as to his involvement. None was provided and he was not handed over to the US. My recollection of what I have read is that Mullah Omar loyally supported his Islamist guest Osama bin Laden on the basis that he was assured 9/11 wasnt the work of Al Qaeda (or maybe bin Laden) but that he came to be pretty pissed off with ObL lying about it which no doubt was one reason why ObL moved to Pakistan.

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

NoseytheDuke > , September 13, 2016 at 5:28 am GMT

@jb Anybody can say anything.

I could declare that the "official story" of the moon landing was "patently false," and demand that you prove -- to my satisfaction! -- that I was wrong. You would of course fail, and I would take your failure as proof that I was right. If I could gather a fringe of crackpots around me, we could start quoting each other, and that would be further proof. We could declare ourselves to be a vast legion of experts, and assert that we had already disproved the official story beyond any reasonable doubt, and that all who disagreed were either delusional or part of the conspiracy. We could do all of those things.

What we would not be able to do is win any real acceptance for our lunacy! Even the author of this article is forced to acknowledge that your movement has "mostly failed" in that regard. There is a reason for that. You can pretend otherwise, but the reason you remain on the fringe, and will continue to remain on the fringe, is that with very few exceptions, every serious person with any knowledge or expertise in the matter considers you all to be a pack of fools .

What you can possibly do, unfortunately, is discredit other serious people who are associated with this site. And this, quite reasonably, makes me sad. You can also be sad about the accelerated decline of the ZUSA assisted by dupes such as yourself who seem incapable of digesting the fact that 9/11 was an inside job, brought about to involve the American people in ruinous wars for the benefit of a foreign power that not only spies on ZUSA more than any other nation but also extorts more taxpayer money than any other nation.

One day it is possible that the penny will drop for you but most likely much too late. You'll have done your bit though so sadness is the least of your just dessert.

5371 > , September 13, 2016 at 5:30 am GMT

@jb I wonder if Ron understands that publishing crap like this on his site undermines the reputation and credibility of his other bloggers. If someone wants to discredit Steve Sailer or Razib Khan, all they have to do is point out that they publish on a site that also promotes crackpot 9/11 truthers. I admire Sailer and Khan, and I think they are doing important work, so I find this very depressing. Someone who takes the ludicrous "Razib" seriously is not someone whose opinion interests me.

5371 > , September 13, 2016 at 5:33 am GMT

@Chaban Oh, so "Muh... hasbara" is your coherent, well-argumented reasoning?

Hey, do you think Lavrov sent some of that leftover pizza and vodka to the Syrian army Russia stabbed in the back?

Might have helped ease the betrayal. You're a ridiculous circus geek going through his patter, louder and louder the fewer people are listening to him. Shut up, get lost, never come back.

NoseytheDuke > , September 13, 2016 at 5:38 am GMT

@Wizard of Oz My recollection of what I have read is that Mullah Omar loyally supported his Islamist guest Osama bin Laden on the basis that he was assured 9/11 wasnt the work of Al Qaeda (or maybe bin Laden) but that he came to be pretty pissed off with ObL lying about it which no doubt was one reason why ObL moved to Pakistan.

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

Erebus > , September 13, 2016 at 6:10 am GMT

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.

Erebus > , September 13, 2016 at 8:32 am GMT

@Wizard of Oz On CGI would you care to address the matters raised in #140.

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?

War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Groovy Battle for Blair Mountain"] > , September 13, 2016 at 11:35 am GMT

@Erebus 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. 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.

Wizard of Oz > , September 13, 2016 at 11:40 am GMT

@Erebus


On CGI would you care to address the matters raised in #140.
Well, I'll give you some quick thoughts...
Which are the preferred circumstantial details of the CGI theory?
1. That missiles struck the buildings when the CGI gave the impression that aircraft had?
2. Nothing struck the buildings but they had been wired for an initial explosion as well as the later ones that brought them down?
I think that's a distinction without a difference for the purposes of the demolition, or for the purposes of CGI. Neither is enhanced by the employment of missiles. Both require the initial explosion to create the Wiley E. Coyote cutout in the facade, but sending armed missiles would introduce an uncontrolled variable into the demolition sequence.

To my mind, the use of missiles would have but one purpose, namely to seed the imagination of any witnesses with a blurry flying thing caught out the corner of their eye, backed up by an appropriate amount of aircraft noise. Auto-suggestion, enhanced by "professional auto-suggesters", would have filled in the rest of the details of AA liveried Boeing 7x7s etc.

For myself, I tend to lean towards cruise missiles of the old slow, jet propelled, type in use since the WW2 era V2. They were designed to fly at low altitude, be highly manoeuvrable, can be very accurate, fly at subsonic speeds (5-600mph), make lots of jet noise, and look vaguely like aircraft though much smaller. They would have been unarmed, of course, but blowing things up wasn't their mission.
Parenthetically, that the missiles may have been picked up on radar would provide the reason why the "commercial aircraft" had to be said to be travelling at impossibly high speeds. EG: AA11 "impacted" at an astonishing 590mph a few hundred feet above sea level.
Besides the physical impossibilities (see Lear affidavit above) of flying commercial airliners at those speeds and altitudes, the question arises of why didn't the pilots slow down to greatly improve the probability of hitting the buildings? Wouldn't two plausible collisions at 300mph have delivered the message they were ostensibly sending?
Or did these geniuses calculate that the buildings would collapse if they hit at (an impossible) 590mph, but would remain upright at say 300mph?

Does that help? 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.

Wizard of Oz > , September 13, 2016 at 12:02 pm GMT

@NoseytheDuke Al Qaeda was/is a CIA creation. It is certainly not glib to suggest that the Taliban offered to turn over OBL to the US if evidence of his involvement could be provided, that is simply the case. None was provided so he was not handed over.

Glib is a better description of your own obfuscation and dissembling here on a wide variety of matters. Lucky for you that unz.com has contributors like Quartermaster, Boris, iffen etc. Without them you'd be a contender for the biggest shit-stain on the soiled underpants of The Unz Review.

Also, Rurik has contributed some terrific comments over time on a variety of articles, your own comments don't even come close. 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.

Erebus > , September 13, 2016 at 1:03 pm GMT

@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.

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.

Boris > , September 13, 2016 at 1:07 pm GMT

@Erebus 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.

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."

Sam Shama > , September 13, 2016 at 1:44 pm GMT

@5371 Someone who takes the ludicrous "Razib" seriously is not someone whose opinion interests me. 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.

Wizard of Oz > , September 13, 2016 at 1:45 pm GMT

@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.
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. 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???

Rurik > , September 13, 2016 at 2:02 pm GMT

@Erebus 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. 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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3N2RrQWsGes

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.

Erebus > , September 13, 2016 at 2:29 pm GMT

@Boris


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." 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.

Anonymous > , Disclaimer September 13, 2016 at 2:54 pm GMT

@Erebus 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 7x7 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. So this video, and the woman in that gaping hole are parts of the Wily E. Coyote illusions, eh?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APPrKNskn7Y

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

War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Groovy Battle for Blair Mountain"] > , September 13, 2016 at 3:13 pm GMT

@Erebus 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 7x7 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. 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.

Jonathan Revusky > , Website September 13, 2016 at 3:42 pm GMT

@Rurik 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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3N2RrQWsGes

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?!

http://cdn.rsvlts.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/s_a02_11114204-930x735.jpeg

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.

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? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUnLl2JVoMw&list=PLC92F6DFD7A88AB9B

L.K > , September 13, 2016 at 4:46 pm GMT

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]

Erebus > , September 13, 2016 at 4:57 pm GMT

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APPrKNskn7Y

While pretending to be so damn intelligent, also ponder on your shamelessness. Where in that affidavit does he talk about holes in the buildings?

Ron Unz > , Website September 13, 2016 at 4:59 pm GMT

@Rurik 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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3N2RrQWsGe s

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?!

http://cdn.rsvlts.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/s_a02_11114204-930x735.jpeg

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.

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"

Rurik > , September 13, 2016 at 5:03 pm GMT

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)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmDKhw5rWuE

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

Erebus > , September 13, 2016 at 5:04 pm GMT

@Rurik 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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3N2RrQWsGes

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?!

http://cdn.rsvlts.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/s_a02_11114204-930x735.jpeg

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. 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.

!--file:///F:/Public_html/Skeptics/Political_skeptic/Corporatism/National_security_state/Intelligence_services/False_flag_operations/mistery_of_building7_collapse.shtml-->

[Aug 14, 2017] Why the government rushed to dispose all the evident from the crime scene. Especially for flight 93

Notable quotes:
"... 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 ..."
"... 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. ..."
"... 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 ..."
"... 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. ..."
"... 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. ..."
"... All you need to know is that building #7 fell as if only AIR held it up for roughly 108 feet. ..."
"... Keep in mind that lots of evidence already suggests that there was no plane in Pentagon. ..."
"... 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? ..."
"... 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. ..."
"... 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 ..."
"... More likely, it [Building 7] 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. ..."
"... 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. ..."
"... 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." ..."
"... 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. ..."
"... 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. ..."
September 15, 2016

Rurik > , September 15, 2016 at 1:07 pm GMT

@Stonehands 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'.

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKKtAlK2Lh0

Rurik > , September 15, 2016 at 1:51 pm GMT

@Erebus


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.

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.

Rurik > , September 15, 2016 at 3:05 pm GMT

@Sparkon 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--

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GY0yWXGaKs

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bq1-BCeNcm0

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

Ron Unz > , September 15, 2016 at 3:15 pm GMT

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

alexander > , September 15, 2016 at 3:26 pm GMT

@L.K 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? 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.

Rurik > , September 15, 2016 at 4:17 pm GMT

@utu "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.

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?

Anonymous Smith > , September 15, 2016 at 4:53 pm GMT

@Ron Unz 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... 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.

Sam J. > , September 15, 2016 at 5:31 pm GMT

@Boris


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. 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

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

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.

alexander > , September 15, 2016 at 5:35 pm GMT

@Ron Unz 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... 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.

Sam J. > , September 15, 2016 at 6:00 pm GMT

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.

Sam Shama > , September 15, 2016 at 6:31 pm GMT

@utu "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. [ 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.

Rurik > , September 15, 2016 at 6:37 pm GMT

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

Boris > , September 15, 2016 at 7:44 pm GMT

@Sam J. 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

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

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.

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.

utu > , September 15, 2016 at 7:53 pm GMT

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?

Jonathan Revusky > , Website September 15, 2016 at 10:11 pm GMT

@Ron Unz 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...

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!

Jonathan Revusky > , Website September 15, 2016 at 10:23 pm GMT

@utu

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.

... ... ...

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?

Jonathan Revusky > , Website September 15, 2016 at 10:48 pm GMT

@Rurik

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GY0yWXGaKs

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bq1-BCeNcm0

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

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-rfk-biWRz44/U635N8lZP4I/AAAAAAAAAMY/wXhoFBjg5_c/s1600/M.jpg

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

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.

alexander > , September 15, 2016 at 10:49 pm GMT

@Jonathan Revusky

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! 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 ?

Jonathan Revusky > , Website September 15, 2016 at 10:52 pm GMT

@Jonathan Revusky


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!

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.

Erebus > , September 15, 2016 at 11:02 pm GMT

@Ron Unz 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...

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.

Erebus > , September 15, 2016 at 11:26 pm GMT

@alexander 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 ?

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 [Building 7] 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.

Ron Unz > , September 15, 2016 at 11:38 pm GMT

@utu "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.

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.

Ron Unz > , September 15, 2016 at 11:40 pm GMT

@Erebus


...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.

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.

utu > , September 15, 2016 at 11:48 pm GMT

@Jonathan Revusky


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?

"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.

Rurik > , September 16, 2016 at 12:15 am GMT

@Erebus

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.

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

Rurik > , September 16, 2016 at 12:19 am GMT

@utu "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.

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

utu > , September 16, 2016 at 12:25 am GMT

@Ron Unz


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. "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.

Rurik > , September 16, 2016 at 12:28 am GMT

@Boris


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.

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

Sparkon [AKA "SP"] > , September 16, 2016 at 12:29 am GMT

T he 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–

JG > , September 16, 2016 at 12:32 am GMT

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

The story was so outlandish though that I think it was just someone trying to discredit the 9/11 truth movement.

Maybe someone can chime in with a credible explanation. 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.

utu > , September 16, 2016 at 12:54 am GMT

@Rurik

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 "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.

utu > , September 16, 2016 at 1:01 am GMT

@Sparkon

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-- "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.

James N. Kennett > , September 16, 2016 at 2:30 am GMT

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

Jonathan Revusky > , Website September 16, 2016 at 6:56 am GMT

@Ron Unz


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.

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.

Jonathan Revusky > , Website September 16, 2016 at 7:40 am GMT

@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. 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.

"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.

!--file:///F:/Public_html/Skeptics/Political_skeptic/Corporatism/National_security_state/Intelligence_services/False_flag_operations/mistery_of_building7_collapse.shtml-->

[Aug 14, 2017] I try to resist participating in 9/11 threads because everybody's mind is made up. I

Notable quotes:
"... 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. ..."
"... 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. ..."
"... 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. ..."
"... 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. ..."
"... 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. ..."
"... 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. ..."
"... 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] ..."
"... 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: ..."
"... If the official BS becomes too untenable, another scapegoat will be found instead, probably the Saudis. ..."
"... "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?" ..."
"... 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. ..."
"... 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. ..."
"... 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. ..."
"... 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! ..."
"... 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. ..."
"... 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. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLqGRv7CQlc ..."
"... 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. ..."
"... 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. ..."
"... 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: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jwieqSNpnM ..."
"... 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. ..."
"... 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. ..."
"... 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. ..."
"... 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? ..."
"... 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? ..."
"... 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. ..."
"... 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? ..."
"... " 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 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. ..."
"... [AKA "Groovy Battle for Blair Mountian"] ..."
"... 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. ..."
"... "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." ..."
"... You were asked a serious question, don't be a smart ass. Those "scraps" were evidence from a crime scene. ..."
Aug 14, 2017 | www.unz.com

September 11, 2016

Seamus Padraig > , Website September 11, 2016 at 5:16 pm GMT

... ... ...

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.

Robert Magill > , Website September 11, 2016 at 5:45 pm GMT

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.

WorkingClass > , September 11, 2016 at 5:48 pm GMT

@Tom Welsh

Sorry if I misunderstood you. Web fora are low-bandwidth media at best! No problem sir. I agree with your remarks and that is why I offered clarification. I try to resist participating in 9/11 threads because everybody's mind is made up. Its like talking about abortion. In fifteen years the conversation has not changed in spite of the heroic efforts of some among the truthers.

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

Images of Solzhenitsyn with Putin:

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

DavidB > , September 11, 2016 at 7:40 pm GMT

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

Jonathan Revusky > , Website September 11, 2016 at 10:48 pm GMT

@Ron Unz

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

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

Clearly, 9/11 represented by far the greatest and most successful terrorist attack in history, and if you're a terrorist-mastermind, why in the world would you not want to take proper credit for such a tremendous achievement? Can anyone think of the last time a terrorist leader was unwilling to take credit for his successful attack? Yeah, here's another to think about, that is potentially far more devastating

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jacques Sheete > , September 11, 2016 at 11:02 pm GMT

@Ron Unz

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

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

Clearly, 9/11 represented by far the greatest and most successful terrorist attack in history, and if you're a terrorist-mastermind, why in the world would you not want to take proper credit for such a tremendous achievement? Can anyone think of the last time a terrorist leader was unwilling to take credit for his successful attack? Here are a couple of other good sources to keep your suspicions up.

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

-Uri Avnery, Civil War

http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1472915025

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

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

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

Ron Unz > , September 12, 2016 at 2:23 am GMT

@biz

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

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

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

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

But anyway, Bin Laden did claim credit for the 9/11 attacks:

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/osama-bin-laden-911-confession-13506877

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

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

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

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

Boris Kazlov > , September 12, 2016 at 2:37 am GMT

CIA trolls have 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.

Carlton Meyer > , Website September 12, 2016 at 3:00 am GMT

And more from my blog:

Apr 18, 2015 – This is a Debris Field

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

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

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

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

Rurik > , September 12, 2016 at 3:53 pm GMT

@Jonathan Revusky Yeah, here's another to think about, that is potentially far more devastating...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

they made sure their patsies were well-groomed

Rurik > , September 12, 2016 at 4:41 pm GMT

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.

Jonathan Revusky > , Website September 12, 2016 at 7:14 pm GMT

@Rurik

Who would ever concoct such a plan? Imagine yourself as one of the planners of the operation. Your operatives, by and large, cannot speak English, so you send them to America over a year before the operation, to first study English, so that they can learn to fly a plane in a flight school in which the language of instruction is English
they made sure their patsies were well-groomed. You know, there is another aspect of this I hadn't thought about for a while.

Remember the guy who was supposed to be the 20th hijacker, but they took him into custody? Zacarias Moussaoui. French Arab ethnic, born in France. He's still alive, but they have in a supermax prison somewhere, basically buried alive. I suppose nobody can go talk to him. Also, they probably had him in solitary for years and his mind doubtless snapped. This guy

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

Actually, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zacarias_Moussaoui#Flight_training

From February 26 to May 29, 2001, Moussaoui attended flight training courses at Airman Flight School in Norman, Oklahoma. Despite 57 hours of flying lessons, he failed and left without ever having flown solo. This school was visited by Mohamed Atta and Marwan al-Shehhi, who piloted planes into the north and south towers of the World Trade Center.

This guy, Moussaoui, by all accounts, could hardly speak English. He had some kind of kangaroo trial in which he acted as his own lawyer. Figure that one out. Or maybe he realized that the public defender lawyer that he was assigned was going to sell him down the river so he decided to be his own lawyer. But the guy couldn't speak English hardly, it seems.

So, the guy was in America trying to learn to fly a plane. There in Norman, Oklahoma. He was born in France and was fluent in French. Why would he not just study how to fly the plane somewhere in France???!!!

I just did a quick google search: "aéroclub école de pilotage". Here are the results:

https://www.google.es/#q=a%C3%A9roclub+%C3%A9cole+de+pilotage

What comes up is an extensive list of private flight academies, mostly in France, where one could go learn to fly a plane. Every last one of these, presumably, the language of instruction is French.

Why would a Frenchman who cannot speak English hardly worth a damn go to the USA to study how to fly a plane when he could just go to a flight school in France? Where the language of instruction is his native language

Did he ask the court to consider this basic question before they locked him up in the Supermax prison for life?

Or conversely, if you had to go learn how to fly a plane, and you're a native English speaker living in the USA, why would you go to any of these flight academies where the language of instruction is French??!! Like, even if you had some rudimentary high school French, why would you ever do that, when you could just go to one of these places in your own country, where you could study in English?

You know, even on the basis of this kind of consideration, it's just so obvious that these people are framed, they're patsies. It's the only explanation. The narrative is impossible.

But it's not like this is the only glitch in the story. And, of course, the physical evidence relating to the collapse of the buildings is harder evidence certainly, but even just something like this . it's like mind-boggling really, the absurd aspects of the narrative.

ogunsiron > , September 12, 2016 at 10:00 pm GMT

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

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

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

talk about bizarre/contradicting behavior. just a single point out of his entire article. when asked to seriously provide counter points, you feign lack of interest
!-
Boris's remark was pretty on point. "North face free falling" does not imply "whole floor free falling". If one can start from "North face free falling" and arrive to "whole floor free falling" in a logical, step by step manner, using points contained in that NIST article, let's see the reasoning.

If you read a complex article in which one of the important points is "since the dog reads chinese, it must have been able to read the signs the warning signs on the walls of ", it's reasonable to ask the author to explain what exactly they mean by "since the dog reads chinese" and to stop reading the article, for the time being.

annamaria > , September 12, 2016 at 10:00 pm GMT

@Jane Claire It was a terrorist attack and there is no reason to believe it wasn't. How they were always able to do these attacks during drills going back to the first Gulf War is a mystery. Congress had signed the authorization to remove Saddam Hussein in 1998 during the Clinton administration. We had a no fly zone on the country for years. Hillary had written an article for the NYT about the women of Afghanistan and how she wanted her husband to do something. There were plenty of books out to help people feel sympathy for certain groups in the middle east about how these rebels are mistreated. Hillary was walking a young wanna be lawyer at the time around congress to talk about the other women in Afghanistan who want rights like her. But the authorization for Iraq was in 1998.
After 911 this magic coalition appeared to go into not Iraq but Afghanistan. So off we went to get al qaida and Osama bin Laden, except we never bothered to do that but ran past the crusader Bin Laden and went for the Taliban instead, with us fighting beside the Northern Alliance who the Taliban had ousted from power and whose old leader made a home at the UN. Somewhere add in the UN's R2P or responsibility to protect.

But there was still the resolution for Iraq that was signed in 1998 and where is al qaida?

The entire narrative about terrorists filtered out because of Afghanistan, Bill Clinton bombed some empty bunkers there after the USS Cole was bombed as retaliation for killing for the killing of our sailors not by the Taliban but some ghosts someone claimed was in Afghanistan.

But we still had a no fly zone and resolution against Iraq from 1998. It took ol George two years to put something together for Iraq, because once you occupy it, according to the Geneva Convention you have to rebuild it. Congress laid the blame for Iraq squarely with the Bush administration, it was the left who started the whole 911 truth movement so filled with lies against the Bush administration that by this point no one can see straight. So at what point in time will the left tell us where is al qaida? Was the Taliban, Al Assad, Mubarak, Gaddafi etc

al qaida? You mean the left with their Arab spring and throwing out almost every leader in the Middle East wasn't going to take out Saddam too when there was a resolution to do so authorized in 1998?

Anyway it's just a theory of mine with a couple of facts thrown in for good measure. I voted for Bush because he ran on giving a tax break the left deplored, and before they run off at the mouth about how small it was for them Congress decided where the money went and the left doesn't pay much taxes anyway, and the other platform stand was no nation building. So you can blame Bush for Iraq all day, the rest belongs to you. "So you can blame Bush for Iraq all day, the rest belongs to you."

You mean the 5 trillion US$ (and running) that the Bush' unfunded (and illegal) wars have inflicted on the US citizenry? There was also the maculate conception of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan by the US; you might want to check the allegiance of the "moderate" jihadis in today's Syria, whom the US have been funding. It is also very hard – almost impossible – to overlook this speech by General Clark, "Wars Were Planned – Seven Countries In Five Years:" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RC1Mepk_Sw (Yinon plan?)

As Colonel Lang forcefully proposed, this country must reintroduce a near-universal national conscription, the plutocrats' children leading the charge in combat in the future wars.

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???

NoseytheDuke > , September 13, 2016 at 1:16 am GMT

@Rurik great article!

thank you Saker, for an appropriate tribute to the victims and their families who lost their lives on that day. What better way to memorialize them than to ask for an investigation to find their killers?

>>><<<

as an aside, I'm reasonably certain that jets hit the towers, as the films of them doing so seems to me exactly what such a thing would look like. Also after the first tower was struck, they would have expected a lot of eyes (and cameras) on the general scene, and therefore 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, you can find a massive abundance of evidence that this was a false flag attack, orchestrated by the Mossad and elements at the highest levels of our government and media. It isn't unprecedented, they've done false flags to foment all the wars, in one form or another. And as with the attack in the USS Liberty, we all know the entire edifice of our federal government and MSM will circle the wagons and all collude to protect our 'special relationship', even when it means sacrificing American citizens, like they did when Johnson/McNamara ordered the jets that were scrambled to assist the Liberty to return. Twice.

So I have known of the murderous treachery and outright treason that lurks at the heart of my federal government for quite some time now. 911 was for me a wakeup call that they had every intention of making the 21st century just as bloody and horrific as the last one was. And that's saying a lot!

God speed to all who are trying to prevent them from doing that. Agreed Rurik. Any decent human being with morals and a functioning brain should know that the official story if blatantly false and so they should focus their efforts on demanding a full, open and independent investigation. I have some theories myself on the who and how but these only serve to distract and give succour to the vast numbers of fools and traitors who claim "conspiracy theory" every time a legitimate question is raised about these world changing events.

Wizard of Oz > , September 13, 2016 at 12:02 pm GMT

@NoseytheDuke

Al Qaeda was/is a CIA creation. It is certainly not glib to suggest that the Taliban offered to turn over OBL to the US if evidence of his involvement could be provided, that is simply the case. None was provided so he was not handed over.

Glib is a better description of your own obfuscation and dissembling here on a wide variety of matters. Lucky for you that unz.com has contributors like Quartermaster, Boris, iffen etc. Without them you'd be a contender for the biggest shit-stain on the soiled underpants of The Unz Review.

Also, Rurik has contributed some terrific comments over time on a variety of articles, your own comments don't even come close. 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.

Erebus > , September 13, 2016 at 1:03 pm GMT

@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.

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 "those 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.

Sam Shama > , September 13, 2016 at 1:44 pm GMT

@5371 Someone who takes the ludicrous "Razib" seriously is not someone whose opinion interests me. 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.

Rurik > , September 13, 2016 at 2:02 pm GMT

@Erebus 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. 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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3N2RrQWsGes

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.

Erebus > , September 13, 2016 at 2:29 pm GMT

@Boris


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." 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.

Jonathan Revusky > , Website September 13, 2016 at 3:42 pm GMT

@Rurik 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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3N2RrQWsGes

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?!

http://cdn.rsvlts.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/s_a02_11114204-930x735.jpeg

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.

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? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUnLl2JVoMw&list=PLC92F6DFD7A88AB9B

L.K > , September 13, 2016 at 4:46 pm GMT

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]

Erebus > , September 13, 2016 at 4:57 pm GMT

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APPrKNskn7Y

While pretending to be so damn intelligent, also ponder on your shamelessness. Where in that affidavit does he talk about holes in the buildings?

Ron Unz > , Website September 13, 2016 at 4:59 pm GMT

@Rurik 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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3N2RrQWsGes

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?!

http://cdn.rsvlts.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/s_a02_11114204-930x735.jpeg

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.

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 unobstructed 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"

Jonathan Revusky > , Website September 13, 2016 at 5:01 pm GMT

@Wizard of Oz 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???

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.

Rurik > , September 13, 2016 at 5:03 pm GMT

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)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmDKhw5rWuE

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

L.K > , September 13, 2016 at 5:05 pm GMT

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:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jwieqSNpnM

@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.

utu > , September 13, 2016 at 5:14 pm GMT

@Jonathan Revusky

Have you ever looked at the Simon Shack material, like September Clues? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUnLl2JVoMw&list=PLC92F6DFD7A88AB9B

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.

L.K > , September 13, 2016 at 5:20 pm GMT

@Ron Unz

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"... 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.

Erebus > , September 13, 2016 at 5:26 pm GMT

@Wizard of Oz 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???

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.

Rurik > , September 13, 2016 at 5:39 pm GMT

@Ron Unz

"The Dog That Didn't Bark"...

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..

Rurik > , September 13, 2016 at 6:08 pm GMT

@Erebus 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.

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.

Rurik > , September 13, 2016 at 6:29 pm GMT

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

Erebus > , September 13, 2016 at 6:45 pm GMT

@Ron Unz


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"...

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.

Rurik > , September 13, 2016 at 6:58 pm GMT

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

utu > , September 13, 2016 at 8:04 pm GMT

@Ron Unz

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.

Rurik > , September 13, 2016 at 10:37 pm GMT

@Erebus

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.

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

Jonathan Revusky > , Website September 14, 2016 at 1:20 am GMT

@Ron Unz

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5y8PtfKA14

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.

Jonathan Revusky > , Website September 14, 2016 at 1:35 am GMT

@Ron Unz

"The Dog That Didn't Bark"... 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

Sam Shama > , September 14, 2016 at 1:59 am GMT

@Jonathan Revusky

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"?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5y8PtfKA14

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.

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.

Sam J. > , September 14, 2016 at 2:57 am GMT

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5C5_dOEyAfk

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLqGRv7CQlc

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.

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

(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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnLcUxV1dPo

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.

Stonehands > , September 14, 2016 at 3:02 am GMT

@Rurik

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.. Exactly.

utu > , September 14, 2016 at 3:54 am GMT

@Jonathan Revusky

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5y8PtfKA14

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. 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

utu > , September 14, 2016 at 4:04 am GMT

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

L.K > , September 14, 2016 at 4:58 am GMT

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?

Miro23 > , September 14, 2016 at 7:11 am GMT

@Sam J. 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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5C5_dOEyAfk

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. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLqGRv7CQlc

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.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/b7_nofire.jpg

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

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

(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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnLcUxV1dPo

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. 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.

Jonathan Revusky > , Website September 14, 2016 at 8:46 am GMT

@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?

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: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jwieqSNpnM

@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.

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?

NoseytheDuke > , September 14, 2016 at 9:36 am GMT

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.

Jonathan Revusky > , Website September 14, 2016 at 9:55 am GMT

@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..

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)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmDKhw5rWuE

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

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!

Erebus > , September 14, 2016 at 10:40 am GMT

@Sam J. 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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5C5_dOEyAfk

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLqGRv7CQlc

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.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/b7_nofire.jpg

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

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

(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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnLcUxV1dPo

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. 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.

vetran > , September 14, 2016 at 12:12 pm GMT

@War for Blair Mountain Open Access Journals are the problem...greedy...dishonest...predatory. The usual suspects:Bentham....Hindawi...Nova Science.

Go google this: Nature...Investigating Journals:The dark side of publishing by Declan Butler.

The Jones-Harrit-Pace nanothermite paper would have been rejected by every major peer reviewed spectroscopy journal.

"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)

Rurik > , September 14, 2016 at 2:14 pm GMT

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMQWzdc175A

Rurik > , September 14, 2016 at 2:52 pm GMT

@Boris

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.

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.

vetran > , September 14, 2016 at 2:59 pm GMT

@Boris I am a big Kubrik fan, but I find A Clockwork Orange and The Shining superior to 2001.

Wait. Those two movies involve human beings having their free will taken over by outside forces: the Ludovico technique and the spirits of the Overlook hotel, respectively. You may be onto something here...

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?

Erebus > , September 14, 2016 at 3:08 pm GMT

@Rurik

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMQWzdc175A

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.

Rurik > , September 14, 2016 at 3:40 pm GMT

@Erebus

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.

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?

Stonehands > , September 14, 2016 at 5:05 pm GMT

@Boris

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. 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?"

Boris > , September 14, 2016 at 5:08 pm GMT

@Erebus 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.

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.

Sparkon [AKA "SP"] > , September 14, 2016 at 9:13 pm GMT

@Rurik

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?

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–

Rurik > , September 14, 2016 at 9:32 pm GMT

@Boris

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.

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?

War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Groovy Battle for Blair Mountian"] > , September 14, 2016 at 10:11 pm GMT

@Sparkon

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Twin_Towers_under_construction.jpg

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-- 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!!!!!!!!!!!

Astuteobservor II > , September 14, 2016 at 11:01 pm GMT

9/11 needs a serious forum like the holocaust forum. just to be safe from trolls and retards. so serious discussion can happen.

Rurik > , September 14, 2016 at 11:13 pm GMT

@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

Stonehands > , September 14, 2016 at 11:29 pm GMT

@Boris

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? "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.

L.K > , September 14, 2016 at 11:56 pm GMT

@Rurik


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? 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.

L.K > , September 15, 2016 at 12:17 am GMT

@Rurik


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? 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.

L.K > , September 15, 2016 at 12:32 am GMT

@Rurik


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? 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 the United 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."

Stonehands > , September 15, 2016 at 2:58 am GMT

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'.

Jane Claire > , September 15, 2016 at 3:27 am GMT

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.

Stephen R. Diamond > , Website September 15, 2016 at 4:37 am GMT

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

Erebus > , September 15, 2016 at 4:39 am GMT

@Boris

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.

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.

Jonathan Revusky > , Website September 15, 2016 at 12:11 pm GMT

@Erebus


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.

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.

Rurik > , September 15, 2016 at 12:55 pm GMT

@L.K 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. 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

!--file:///F:/Public_html/Skeptics/Political_skeptic/Corporatism/National_security_state/Intelligence_services/False_flag_operations/mistery_of_building7_collapse.shtml-->

[Aug 14, 2017] In the immediate aftermath, Bin Laden told various inquiring journalists that he had had absolutely nothing to do with the attacks.

Notable quotes:
"... 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? ..."
Aug 14, 2017 | www.unz.com

September 11, 2016

Ron Unz > , September 11, 2016 at 10:22 pm GMT

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?

[Aug 14, 2017] Cell phone calls from the doomed plane which crashed in Pennsylvania, in which passengers staged a revolt

Aug 14, 2017 | www.unz.com

September 11, 2016

Anonymous > , Disclaimer September 11, 2016 at 5:56 pm GMT

@War for Blair Mountain Anon

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

San Francisco Chronicle December 15th 2004.

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

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

Amasius > , September 11, 2016 at 8:06 pm GMT

@Boris

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

This is another example of truthers rewriting the evidence. Including CeeCee Lyles saying "it's a frame."

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

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

Stonehands > , September 11, 2016 at 8:27 pm GMT

What about this:

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

Boris > , September 11, 2016 at 8:42 pm GMT

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

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

Oh I'm sorry it's "You did great" which makes a lot more sense. lol. I couldn't tell what was said there. I like the idea that a conspiracy meticulously planned for years could be undone because the government impersonator says "It's a frame," which, I guess, is what you would naturally say after recording your fake phone call.

Boris > , September 12, 2016 at 3:09 am GMT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Aug 14, 2017] Zionist Israel - 9-11 They Did It! - Dr. Alan Sabrosky (Jewish)

Notable quotes:
"... O please! "zionists" "Jews" why use such broad words? If there is a group of Jews we need to expose them. But I hate your BS trying to point blanket blame. The terrorists received Billions in insurance Were They Jews? Can you show me the bosses who sent the people back in the building? Can you give me facts to connect them to "Zionists"? ..."
Aug 14, 2017 | www.youtube.com

Tiger Jackson 1 year ago

America is too stupid and pussy to attack Isreal. Yea I said it yes Isreal did it so what. We fucking own America!

ones? 1 week ago

O please! "zionists" "Jews" why use such broad words? If there is a group of Jews we need to expose them. But I hate your BS trying to point blanket blame. The terrorists received Billions in insurance Were They Jews? Can you show me the bosses who sent the people back in the building? Can you give me facts to connect them to "Zionists"?

vomit55 3 years ago

JOHN KERRY ADMITS WTC 7 WAS A CONTROLLED DEMOLITION watch?v=iHKgMssSIEk

seektruthandwisdom 4 years ago

Watch '9/11 Missing Links' and you'll no longer be able to say there is "no real evidence". Alan Sabrosky has told you the truth. Ask world class BBC correspondent Alan Hart what he thinks. Also Dr. Steve Pieczenik (Jewish), Mark Dankoff, Kevin Barrett, Gordon Duff, CIA asset Susan Lindauer, Mark Glenn, Mike Rivero, Cynthia McKinney and a host of others. Do some research and you'll reach the inescapable conclusion that "they did it", "100% certain", just as Dr. Sabrosky has stated.

[Apr 22, 2017] This is one of the best articles I have read about Septemeber 11 attack. No hysterics, just facts. the classic controlled demolition style of WTC7's collapse is one of them

Apr 22, 2017 | www.unz.com

Timur The Lame , April 9, 2017 at 11:36 am GMT \n

100 Words @ Carlton Meyer,

I was peripherally displayed on 60 minutes some 20 years ago. I spent an hour chatting with Mike Wallace. I liked him. He obviously had an marching orders but seemed apologetic in demeanor. In hindsight I realized that he knew that he was a whore when pursuing political or historical issues. My comportment and wit was brilliant ( sorry for the self praise) but of the hour that was filmed they cropped out a 5 second segment that fit their agenda. I was shocked when the segment aired but I was also relatively naive at the time. In other words they were already neutered then.

As an aside, when referencing the issues with respect to WTC 7 I always referred to it as a 47 story building. Mr. Dinh now reveals that it was a 52 story building. I feel foolish.

Cheers- Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

Vires , April 9, 2017 at 11:53 am GMT \n
400 Words Spot on Mr. Lihn, we have to distinguish between the majority of Jews, the decent and intellectually honest ones, most of them manipulated, afraid to lose their jobs and used like the rest of us, and the intellectually dishonest, sociopathic Jew supremacist shill ones (and their non-Jewish stooges, accomplices and enforcers), the Chomskies, Rumsfelds, Rotschilds, Warburgs, Rockefellers, Wilsons, Roosevelts, Churchills, Cheneys, Rubios, Clintons, Bushes, Kagans, Kristols, Wolfowitzs, Foxmans, Shermans, Incitatuses, Dissidents, Corvinuses, Iffies and the Sam the Shams of the world.

We love the decent, intellectually honest and loyal to the countries they live in ones, David Coles, Gilad Atzmons, Arno J. Mayers, Marcus Alethias and Ron Unzs of the world, we are in the same boat with them and we need them to speak up and join us.

And if some of us do not, we are just playing in the hands of the Zionists, being distrustful of all Jews and becoming Jew haters we also become their useful idiots, because the more we hate them, the likelier they are to migrate to Israel, and that is and always has been the central goal of Zionism, and that is the reason why they expect and applaud when some of us go full anti-semite, and also the reason that explains the trolling here in the comments by the Zionist shills, trying to frame bloggers and commenters as anti-semites, so the casual reader who is still on the fence on the Jewish Lobby issue dismisses the whole publication as "Jew-hater" and"Anti-semitic"

That is also the main reason Jewish movers and shakers are pushing for more immigration, the closer to Mexico the US becomes and the closer to Pakistan and Algeria Europe becomes, the more European and American Jews will go back to Israel, that is the central goal of Zionism.

The gathering of the exiles in the land of Israel, became the core idea of the Zionist Movement[1] and the core idea of Israel's Scroll of Independence[2] (Megilat Ha'atzmaut[3]), embodied by the idea of going up, Aliyah, since the Holy Land is considered to be spiritually higher than all other land.

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

Is just part of their plan. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

Santoculto , April 9, 2017 at 12:02 pm GMT \n
Hbd liars in only one twitt

https://mobile.twitter.com/hbdchick/status/851005493392941056?p=v

Joo on the right explain you *_* Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

Sherman , April 9, 2017 at 12:46 pm GMT \n
Here's another article about Christopher Bollyn and Rudy Dent and the losers and misfits they appeal to:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/09/10/jew-hater-christopher-bollyn-brings-9-11-false-flag-act-to-the-brooklyn-commons.html Read More

jacques sheete , April 9, 2017 at 1:06 pm GMT \n
200 Words This is one of the best articles I've read on UR, and that's saying a lot. No hysterics, just facts.

The question of the century.:

So who are you going to believe? Are you going to believe a bunch of government bureaucrats, or my fellow brothers

Warning of ages.:

Foolish Credulity

Why is it that, though deceived again and again by the same things and persons, we are unable to abandon our blind folly?

For this particular kind of fraud has often been committed before now, and by many. That other men should allow themselves to be taken in is perhaps not astonishing; but it is [astonishing]that those should do so who are the authors and origin of the same kind of malpractice.

But I suppose the cause is the absence of that rule so happily expressed by Epicharmus:

"Cool head and wise mistrust are wisdom's sinews. " . . .

- Polybius, Histories.18.40 Composed ~200BC, Translated by Evelyn S. Shuckburgh. translator. London, New York. Macmillan. 1889. Reprint Bloomington 1962.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0234:book=18:chapter=40&highlight=epicharmus

Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Renoman , April 9, 2017 at 2:02 pm GMT \n
Great work Linh! Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Anonymouse , April 9, 2017 at 2:23 pm GMT \n
100 Words Doesn't the mysterious collapse of Building 7 suggest no conspiracy. As the building was empty undergoing a rebuild, what would be the point of destroying it?

From the Zionists making Pearl Harbor happen to their race being the maleficient agent directing all of human history is not that much of a leap. In sober historical fact, Zionists in 1941 in Palestine under the English mandate were not remotely in a position of power. Had they the power, they might have saved their compatriots in Europe by orchestrating massive emigration, which in fact was not permitted by the sovereign nations that might have accepted them. Of course, you can always factor in that inconvenient fact into the conspiracy theory. Read More

jacques sheete ,