Softpanorama

May the source be with you, but remember the KISS principle ;-)
Home Switchboard Unix Administration Red Hat TCP/IP Networks Neoliberalism Toxic Managers
(slightly skeptical) Educational society promoting "Back to basics" movement against IT overcomplexity and  bastardization of classic Unix

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

Introduction

What is most appalling about the Building 7 collapse is that the most crucial evidence from the scene was destroyed before it could be properly examined.

The steel-framed building like building 7 usually did not "neatly" collapse into thier own footprint due to furniture fires. There was not planes or jet fuel involved.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation under Mueller was supposedly investigating the crime. So how on Earth they allowed the steel to be cut up into small pieces and exported to Asian smelters? 

The officials who oversaw the investigation at the World Trade Center certainly knew that it was wrong to dispose of evidence from the crime scene before it had been properly examined. The fact that the highest officials at the Department of Justice and the FBI allowed the structural steel to be destroyed without being examined indicates attempt to hide forensic evidence.  Along with video evidence this is probably the most  strong argument for demolition version of the collapse.

The question why was the evidence destroyed and not examined deserves an answer.

Another question is why some of the companies & agencies & people were connected to Bush family (which  is closely connected to CIA). Of course everything here is very complex, but that fact alone almost made me afraid. If true, it suggests the existence of Mafiosi style clans within the US government and intelligence agencies with kind of "Omertà" oath.

Yet another  important question is the personalities of people assigned to 9/11 commission.  And the role of commission in hiding vital facts.

I will not speculate on the reasons of collapse or mechanisms used to cause it for the Building 7, but it is provable that the speed of initial several seconds of collapse of building 7  resemble free fall, which can be scientifically proven based on existing video of the collapse.

The book Solving 9-11 The Deception That Changed the World points to Mossad, but I strongly doubt it. Israel, at the end, is the US vassal state, which means that Mossad would never act without at least hidden approval of CIA.

What makes the collapse of Building 7 unique  is the existence of several independent videos of the collapse, which was very symmetrical and "organized". Initial spee of the collase was close to the  freefall, which sugessests that columns were destroyed. The footprint of the collapse was very compact.

Story from 9-11 Review

Building 7 was a 47-story steel-framed skyscraper that occupied a block adjacent to the World Trade Center complex, two city blocks away from the nearest of the Twin Towers. It was not hit by an aircraft. NIST alleges that it was severely damaged by large pieces of steel ejected from the North Tower, but there is no publicly verifiable evidence of this. Nonetheless, like the Twin Towers, Building 7 underwent a total collapse on 9/11/01. Whereas the Twin Towers exploded Building 7 imploded in a manner indistinguishable from conventional building demolitions.  

Building 7's collapse, which occurred at 5:20 PM, is not thought to have killed anyone. According to the government's vague and inconclusive report, fires caused Building 7 to collapse. Yet, excepting 9/11/01, there has never been a case of fires, no matter how severe, causing the collapse of a steel-framed high-rise building. Why wasn't this inexplicable incident a major news story?

Building 7 occupied a block to the north of the World Trade Center Plaza. Its 23rd floor held Mayor Giuliani's Emergency Command Center. This floor had bullet- and bomb-resistant windows, an independent air and water supply, and an unobstructed view of the north faces of both towers. 1   2  

The other government agencies with offices in the building were the IRS, the EEOC, the US Secret Service, the SEC, and the CIA.

The private tenants were Salomon Smith Barney, American Express Bank International, Standard Chartered Bank, Provident Financial Management, ITT Hartford Insurance Group, First State Management Group, Inc., Federal Home Loan Bank, and NAIC Securities.

Large numbers of case files for ongoing investigations by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) were reportedly destroyed in the collapse. The Los Angeles Times reported that "substantial files were destroyed" for 3000 to 4000 of the SEC's cases. The EEOC reported that documents for 45 active cases were destroyed. 3   Before the attack, SEC investigations of corporate fraud by companies such as Enron and Worldcom were the subject of many news reports -- reports that virtually vanished in the wake of the attack.

e x c e r p t
title: Waking Up From Our Nightmare
authors: Don Paul and Jim Hoffman
 
A question arises from the obvious demolition of WTC 7: Why destroy such a valuable piece of real estate?

We know that WTC7's developer and lease-holder, Silverstein Properties, and WTC7's mortgage-holders, the Blackstone Group, Banc of America Securities, and General Motors Acceptance Corporation, received a Court-awarded amount of $861 million dollars from Industrial Risk Insurers in February 2002. We know that about $386 million had been invested in WTC7 before its destruction. The Court-award meant that Silverstein Properties and the mortgage-holders would share in about $475 million of profit. [8]

Silverstein Properties is headed by Larry Silverstein, a large contributor to Democrat and Republican office-holders. Silverstein Properties became the primary owner of the WTC Twin Towers less than two months before 9/11/01 (Westfield Malls was Silverstein Properties' minority-partner). Buying from the New York Port Authority, Silverstein Properties invested only $15 million toward a total purchase-price of $3.2 billion for a 99-year lease on holdings worth an estimated $8 billion. The low-rise office buildings WTC 4, 5, and 6, and 400,000 square feet of retail space were included with the Twin Towers in this deal. Silverstein Properties immediately took out extensive insurance policies on its new holdings.

One clause in Silverstein Properties' insurance policies for the new WTC holdings soon proved instrumental. Quoting the British Financial Times of September 14, 2001, the American Reporter wrote that ‘ the lease has an all-important escape clause: If the buildings are struck by “an act of terrorism”, the new owners' obligations under the lease are void. As a result, the new owners are not required to make any payments under their lease, but they will be able to collect on the loss of the buildings that collapsed or were otherwise destroyed and damaged in the attacks. ’ [9] Silverstein Properties is still contesting the amount of pay-out due for destruction of the Twin Towers—$3.55 billion for one ‘occurrence’ or $7.1 billion for two ‘occurrences’. The “terrorism” clause in his lease has given Larry Silverstein leverage in negotiating his new deal for the site. [10]

8. ‘Rebuilding Begins for 7 WTC Despite Unanswered Questions’, Peter Grant, Wall Street Journal, July 10, 2002, http://homes.wsj.com/columnists_com/bricks/20020710-bricks.html .
9. ‘No Fraud, but Huge Profits Seen in World Trade Center Attacks’, Joe Shea, The American Reporter, August 1, 2004, reprinting piece from September 2001, http://www.american-reporter.com/2,421W/1494.html .

 

Except from Sheldon Wolin book "Democracy Incorporated"

Democracy Incorporated: Managed Democracy and…  by Sheldon S. Wolin

 

Myth in the Making

 

Robert S. Mueller 111 [director of the FBI] and Secretary' of State Powell read from the Bible. Mr. Mueller’s theme was good versus evil. “We do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over the present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places,” he said, reading from Ephesians 6:12-18.

Mr. Powell, who followed, touched on trust in God. “Therefore do not be anxious about tomorrow, for tomorrow will be anxious about itself,” Mr. Powell said, reading from Matthew 6:25-34.'

In choosing [the World Trade Center] as their target the terrorists perversely dramatized the supremacy of the free market and of the political system intimately associated with it in the United States and elsewhere, democracy, as defining features of the world of the twenty-first century.

—Michael Mandelhaunr

 

If the burning of the German Parliament (Reichstag) in 1933 produced the symbolic event portending the destruction of parliamentary government by dictatorship, the destruction of the World Trade Center and the attack upon the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, were a revelatory. What did the selected targets symbolize? Unlike the Reichstag fire the attacks were not aimed at what could be characterized as the architecture of constitutional democracy and the system of power that it represented. Neither the congressional buildings nor the White House was attacked; nor were the symbols of democracy, not the Statue of Liberty, the Lincoln Memorial, or Independence Hall.

Instead the buildings symbolic of financial and military power were struck practically simultaneously. Once the United States declared war on terrorism, attention naturally focused on the projection abroad of the actual forms of globalizing power symbolized by the targets of 9/11. Yet the impact of 9/11 may prove equally significant in accelerating the threat to the domestic system of power whose architectural symbols were ignored.

On cue to 9/11 the media—television, radio, and newspapers—acted in unison, fell into line, even knew instinctively what the line and their role should be. What followed may have been the modern media’s greatest production, its contribution to what was promptly—and darkly—described as a “new world.” Their vivid representations of the destruction of the Twin Towers, accompanied by interpretations that were unwavering and unquestioning, served a didactic end of fixing the images of American vulnerability while at the same time testing the potential for cultural control.

The media produced not only an iconography of terror but a fearful public receptive to being led, first by hailing a leader, the mayor of New York, Rudolf Giuliani, and then by following one, the president of the United States, George W. Bush. As one pundit wrote approvingly, “the fear that is so prevalent in the country [worked as] a cleanser, washing away a lot of the self-indulgence of the past decade.” Washed in the blood of the lambs ... Actually, those who could afford selfindulgence would continue to do so while those who could not would send their sons and daughters to Afghanistan and Iraq.

September 11 was quickly consecrated as the equivalent of a national holy day, and the nation was summoned to mourn the victims. Soon thereafter, when memory receded, the date itself was perpetuated and made synonymous with terrorism.  On the second anniversary' of the event “a senior White House official” explained the two different rituals of grieving adopted by the president: “Last year you had an open wound, physically and metaphorically. This year it is about healing— you don’t ever want to forget, and the war goes on, but the spiritual need is different.”

September 11 was thus fashioned into a primal event, the principal reference point by which the nation’s body politic was to be governed and the lives of its members ordered. From the crucified to the redeemer-nation.

But was it “holy politics” or wholly politics? How was it possible for a notably gimlet-eyed administration, flaunting its prowess for unchristian hardball politics, to overlay its unabashed corporate culture with the cloak of piety without tripping itself up? To be sure, its devotional mien would occasionally be joked about. The jokes, however, would trail off, as though the jokesters themselves were uneasy about mocking some higher powers. That the overwhelming majority of Americans declare they “believe in God” is likely to give pause to expressions of irreverence.

In attempting to characterize an emerging symbolic system reported as “a spontaneous outpouring,” one must bear in mind that, although pressures from the administration were undoubtedly at work, television largely conscripted itself. Unprompted, stations replayed endlessly the spectacle of the collapsing Twin Towers while newspapers, in a macabre version of Andy Warhol’s prediction of fifteen minutes of fame for everyone, published continuing stories of heroism and self-sacrifice by firemen and police and thumbnail biographies of individual victims. The media then announced, disingenuously, that “9/11 had forever been printed on the national consciousness.” Which is to say, the date was enshrined and readied, not merely to justify but to sanctity the power of those pledged to be its avengers.

In a society where freedom of speech, media, and religion are guaranteed, where quirkiness is celebrated, why was the result unison? I low is it that a society that makes a fetish of freedom of choice can produce a unanimity eerily comparable to that of a more openly coercive system? Is it a process like the “hidden hand” of Adam Smith’s free market where, unprompted by any central directorate, the uncoordinated actions of individuals, each concerned to advance his self-interest, nonetheless produce an overall effect that is good for all?

Smith’s model assumes that all of the actors are similarly motivated by rational self-interest, but the aftermath of 9/11, its production and reproduction, is remarkable for the incongruity of the actors, for the diversity of motivations that nonetheless were combined to perpetuate a spectacular moment that permittcd only one response. September 11 became that rare phenomenon in contemporary life, an unambiguous truth, one that dissolved contradictions, the ambiguities of politics, the claims and counterclaims of political ideologies and pundits. Critics transformed themselves into penitents defending a preventive war as just and celebrating a constitution sufficiently flexible to be suspended at the pleasure of the chief executive. The truth of 9/11 did more than set free the nation’s citizens; it rendered them innocent, able to repress their involvement in the vast expanse of power of empire and globalization, and to ask plaintively, “Why does the rest of the world hate us?”

What explains and promotes such unanimity? In an earlier time it was common to liken the free circulation of ideas to competition in a free marketplace: the best ideas, like the superior product, would prevail over inferior competitors. In the highly structured marketplace of ideas managed by media conglomerates, however, sellers rule and buyers adapt to what the same media has pronounced to be “mainstream.” Free circulation of ideas has been replaced by their managed circularity. The self-anointed keepers of the First Amendment flame encourage exegesis and reasonable criticism. Critics who do not wish to be considered as “off-the-wall” attract buyers by internalizing co-optation. Accepting the conventions of criticism entails accepting the context created and enforced by the “house” voices. The result is an essentially monochromatic media. In-house commentators identify the problem
and its parameters, creating a box that dissenters struggle vainly to elude. The critic who insists on changing the context is dismissed as irrelevant, extremist, “the Left”—or ignored altogether. A more sophisticated structure embraces the op-ed page and letters to the editor. In theory’ everyone is free to submit articles or letters, but the newspaper chooses what suits its purpose with meager explanation of standards for acceptance—although it is obvious that the selected opinions represent limits set by the editors. From the paper’s viewpoint the best of all worlds is attained when the authors of op-ed pieces or letters criticize not the paper but its pundits, who are carefully selected according to a Dorothy Parker principle of representing all opinions in the range between A and B.11 The point is the appearance of freedom: critics are encouraged to “score points.” to trade insults, although these jabs do not add up to anything beyond venting.

The responsibility' of the responsible media includes maintaining an ideological “balance” that treats the “Left” and the “Right” as polar opposites as well as moral and political equivalents. Over the years the New York limes has faithfully discharged that responsibility. In 1992 it featured a story about South Africa, still struggling with the effects of apartheid. The reporter interviewed some young black people who favored a war to “end the colonial settler regime.” That sentiment gave the Times reporter the sense that he was caught in “some cold war time warp.” It inspired him to balance off the anticolonial rebels by inserting a description of an Afrikaner neo-Nazi gang who wanted “a people’s army.” His conclusion: “the two groups have much in common.” One of their commonalities, he discovered, was the small numbers in each group. After “a two-hour conversation” with the blacks he was ready with his conclusion: the conversation was “a refresher course in the ideological lexicon that has been discredited from Moscow to Mogadishu.”

By the most recent count, more than three thousand innocent persons were murdered on September 11 without apparent provocation or justification. The damage to property and the impact upon the city of New York and upon the general economy were enormous. These facts, at once familiar yet impossible to fully comprehend, had a stark and brutal immediacy.

Quantitatively they were as crudely “real” as reality is ever likely to be. Since then the real it)' of that day has been reproduced in a variety of guises and practical applications that are, in their own way, as amazing as the event invoked to justify them.

The nation was immediately declared to be at war against an enemy whose nature, number, and location were largely unknown. Nonetheless, “enemy aliens” were rounded up and held under constitutionally dubious conditions. The nation’s population was periodically placed on a state of alert. The powers of government were expanded and made more intrusive, while simultaneously its social welfare functions were radically scaled back. Amidst a faltering economy, widening disparities between social classes, and escalating national debt, the administration responded by promoting its own version of “class actions.” It became more aggressively biased in favor of the wealthier, while, equally significant, the less wealthy and poor remained politically apathetic, unable to find a vehicle for expressing their helplessness. A provocative foreign policy was adopted with the aim of releasing American power from the restraints of treaties and of cooperation with allies. “At some point,” a senior administration official warned, “the Europeans with butterflies in their stomachs—many of whom didn’t want us to go into Afghanistan—will see that they have a bipolar choice: they can get with the plan [to invade Iraq] or get off.”

New enemy states were identified, not as hostile or enemy but as “evil,” and threatened. The notion of preemptive war was embraced and put into practice against Iraq. The general effect of this expansion of powers created a new world where everything became larger-than-life, strange, filled with huge powers locked in a contest that would determine the fate of the world: “Axis of Evil,” “weapons of mass destruction,” “civilization against barbarism.” The reality of September 11 became clothed in a myth that dramatized an encounter between two world-contending powers and prophesied that after severe trials and marvelous events the power blessed by the Creator would triumph over the evil power.

The mythology created around September 11 was predominantly Christian in its themes. The day was converted into the political equivalent of a holy day of crucifixion, of martyrdom, that fulfilled multiple functions: as the basis of a political theology, as a communion around a mystical body of a bellicose republic, as a warning against political
apostasy, as a sanctification of the nation’s leader, transforming him from a powerful officeholder of questionable legitimacy into an instrument of redemption, and at the same time exhorting the congregants to a wartime militancy, demanding of them uncritical loyalty and support,  that the battle against chaos had no discernible end. “The war on terror,” he declaimed, “is a generational struggle that will continue long after you [i.e., Congress] and I have turned our duties over to others.”

He then threw down the gauntlet to the vast majority of Americans and Congress by declaring that he would seek authorization from Congress to increase the army and Marine Corps by ninety-two thousand over five years, and, equally significant, he pressed Congress to assist in devising “a volunteer Civilian Reserve Corps.” That corps would, in effect, function as a private army. He envisaged a corps of “civilians with critical skills to serve on missions abroad when America needs them.” A praetorian guard for the new empire?

In the early part of the twentieth century the great social and political theorist Max Weber wrote feelingly of the “disenchantment of the w orld” brought about by the triumph of scientific rationalism and skepticism. There was, he contended, no room any longer for occult forces, supernatural deities, or divinely revealed truth. In a world dominated by scientifically established facts and with no privileged or sacrosanct areas, myth would seemingly have a difficult time retaining a foothold.

Not only did Weber underestimate the staying power of credulity; he could not foresee that the great triumphs of modem science would themselves provide the basis for technological achievements which, far from banishing the mythical, would unwittingly inspire it. The mythical is also nourished from another source, one seemingly more incongruous than the scientific-technological culture. Consider the imaginary world continuously being created and re-created by contemporary advertising and rendered virtually escape-proof by the enveloping culture of the modern media. Equallv important, the culture produced by modern advertising, which seems at first glance to be resooping culture of the modern media.

Equally important, the culture produced by modern advertising, which seems at first glance to be resolutely secular and materialistic, the antithesis of religious and especially
of evangelical teachings, actually reinforces that dynamic. Almost every product promises to change your life: it will make you more beautiful, cleaner, more sexually alluring, and more successful. Born again, as it were. The messages contain promises about the future, unfailingly optimistic, exaggerating, miracle-promising—the same ideology that invites corporate executives to exaggerate profits and conceal losses, but always with a sunny face. The virtual reality of the advertiser and the “good news” of the evangelist complement each other, a match made in heaven. Their zeal to transcend the ordinary and their bottomless optimism both feed the hubris of Superpower. Each colludes with the other. The evangelist looks forward to the “last days,” while the corporate executive systematically exhausts the world’s scarce resources. Virtual reality has about it the character of unreality, of transcending the ordinary world and its common smells and sights, its limiting rhythms of birth, growth, decline, death, and renewal. For Americans, the chosen people of advertising, technology', capitalist orthodoxy, and religious faith, the greatest triumph of virtual reality' is war, the great unexperienced reality. Ever since the Civil War Americans have fought wars at a distance: in Cuba, the Philippines, France, on almost every other continent in World War II, then in Korea, Vietnam, the Middle East. War is an action game, played in the living room, or a spectacle on a screen, but, in either case, not actually experienced. Ordinary life goes on uninterruptedly: work, recreation, professional sports, family vacations. After 9/11 terrorism becomes another virtual reality', experienced only through its re-created images, its destructiveness (= wonders) absorbed through the spectacle of the occasional and hapless terrorist or captive journalist put on public display. In contrast, official policy decrees that the coffins of dead soldiers are not to be seen by the public.

In an age poised between the scientific rationalism of modernity and a deeply skeptical postmodernity for which truth or fact is simply “another story” and irony a badge of courage, myth is no straightforward matter, no “easy sell” to a generation for whom cynicism is second nature. For reality to be transmuted into popular mythology certain conditions had to obtain, or be created; only then could the mythic become a defining element in both the popular understanding of the post-September 11 world and the self-justifying rhetoric of the governing elite. That susceptible public is one whose secularism is continually overestimated and its credulousness underestimated, especially by liberals. There were many who believed in a virtual reality and marvels long before they were simulated. Additionally, when myth emerges, not in a prescientific or pretechnological world, but in a power-jaded world accustomed to scientific revolutions and technological marvels (cloning, man on the moon), and, at the same time, credulous—for such an audience mvth has to Dortrav prodigies of Dower that are both familiar and uncanny. Not space aliens armed with the weaponry of a more advanced civilization, an “above world,” but their opposite: primitive, satanic, invisible denizens of an “underworld” who (through devious monev-laundering schemes) are able to purchase and operate contemporary' technology'. The power-jaded world, so jaded it names its own mythical champion “Superpower” after a comic strip character, will engage terrorism for control of the world. Before that contest can be cleanly represented, before power can be mythified, it needs a new world, a fresh context at once mythical and believable, though not necessarily credible.

When myth begins to govern decision-makers in a world where ambiguity' and stubborn facts abound, the result is a disconnect between the actors and reality'. They convince themselves that the forces of darkness possess weapons of mass destruction and nuclear capabilities; that their own nation is privileged by a god who inspired the Founding Fathers and the writing of the nation’s constitution; and that a class structure of great and stubborn inequalities does not exist. A grim but joyous few' see portents of a world that is living out “the last days.” that disconnect raises the question of what kind of politics could best restore reality, could press decision-makers to take account of it. Is it a politics dominated by a combination of the elite and the elect? or a politics more closely connected, not with “the” reality nor with those who are convinced of their power to remake reality on their ow'n
terms—a politics, rather, involving and representing those for whom reality is more stubborn, more a fact of life that has to be engaged daily?

Totalitarianism’s Inversion: Beginnings of the Imaginary of a Permanent Global War

  The fact of the matter is that there is a little bit of the totalitarian buried somewhere, way down deep, in each and every one of us. It is only the cheerful light of confidence and security which keeps this evil genius down.... If confidence and security were to disappear, don’t think that he would not be waiting to take their place. — George Kerman (1947)'

Is an American version of totalitarianism plausible, even conceivable? Or is inverted totalitarianism merely a contemporary libel imposed on an innocent past; or, perhaps, like profane love, an identity which cannot be acknowledged by a public discourse that assumes totalitarianism is the foreign enemy?

Underlying those questions is an important preliminary consideration: how would we go about detecting the signs of totalitarianism? how would we know what we are becoming? how, as a citizenry, would we set about separating what we are from the illusions we may have about who we are?

One could start by scrutinizing certain actions of the current administration (denial of due process, torture, sweeping assertions of executive power) and then decide whether they add up to, or are indicative of, a system that, while unique, could fairly be labeled totalitarian. One might go further and ponder the behavior ot friends, neighbors, associates, and public figures, including politicians, celebrities, officials, and the police, and decide whether their actions contribute to or have a place in a totalitarian scheme. Proceeding in this way would, however, not quite resolve the problem.

It is not alone what we observe but what we are becoming. What formative experiences of recent years could have made us, as a citizenry, contributors to the tendencies toward a totalitarianism? That question suggests a direction. That possibility, in turn, implies a past, a history of what we may have collectively experienced, sublimated, and perpetuated. In thus lending contemporary events historical depth we reset the limits of the plausible regarding what we are becoming as a people that could dispose us twice to approve an administration which has expanded presidential power beyond that claimed by any previous president, and to support a war founded on lies to the Congress and the public, a war that bears responsibility for the deaths of thousand of innocents, reduced to rubble a nation which had done us no harm, and burdened coming generations with a shameful and costly legacy -- without generating massive revulsion and resistance.

Antecedents and precedents: both notions perpetuate past experiences. They raise the query, “What went before” that might have continuing effects? Plausibly one could ask, were there antecedents of inverted totalitarianism that could become precedents, and could some antecedents derive from opposed doctrines and political alignments, liberal as well as conservative, Democratic as well as Republican?

More than a half century ago, and in sobriety, totalitarianism was imagined in a form that seemed plausible despite a political setting where there was virtual unanimity that totalitarianism was the exact antithesis of the nation’s understanding of itself.

... ... ...

====

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 ;-)

[Sep 24, 2020] 9-11 Truth- Under Lockdown For Nearly Two Decades

Sep 24, 2020 | www.blacklistednews.com

9/11 TRUTH: UNDER LOCKDOWN FOR NEARLY TWO DECADES Published: April 10, 2020
Share | Print This

undefined Twitter Facebook Email Pinterest Reddit

Authored by Max Parry via The Unz Review,

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary"

- H.L. Mencken

As the global pandemic grips world attention, completely unnoticed by mainstream media was the release of a final report of an academic study pertaining to another previously calamitous event of international significance.

On March 25th, the conclusion of a four year investigation by researchers at the University of Alaska Fairbanks was published which determined that the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 on September 11th, 2001 was not caused by fire. The peer-reviewed inquiry was funded by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, a nonprofit organization composed of more than 3,000 building architects and engineers who are a signatory to the group's formal appeal calling for a new investigation into the three -- not two -- WTC skyscrapers destroyed on 9/11. The researchers infer that the collapse of Building 7 was actually the result of a controlled demolition:

"The principal conclusion of our study is that fire did not cause the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11, contrary to the conclusions of NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) and private engineering firms that studied the collapse. The secondary conclusion of our study is that the collapse of WTC 7 was a global failure involving the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building."

With or without a pandemic, it is likely corporate media would have ignored the study anyway, just as they have anything that contradicts the official story of 9/11. However, it is notable that many have drawn parallels between the COVID-19 outbreak and the 9/11 attacks based on the widespread changes to daily life as a result of the crisis going forward. Already there is talk of nationwide lockdowns as a "new normal" with many rightly expressing concerns over civil liberties, press freedoms, the surveillance state, and other issues just as there were following 9/11. By the same measure, a false dichotomy is being established by political gatekeepers in order to silence those who dare challenge the official account as to how the coronavirus began. It is a stigmatization that is all too familiar to those who have never believed the conventional narrative that 19 Arab hijackers loyal to Osama bin Laden armed only with box-cutters were solely responsible for the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on that fateful day.

There is a common misconception that to believe in so-called "conspiracy theories" is to somehow lose sight of the bigger picture or systemic problems. Behind this phenomenon is a mistakenly presumed conflict between understanding the broader, overarching system versus the sinister motives of those in power who administer it  --  when they are inextricably linked. Political scientist Michael Parenti, who drew the ire of many of his fellow left-wing colleagues for his work on the Kennedy assassination , refers to it in his lecture "Understanding Deep Politics" as a perceived incompatibility between " the structural and the functional ." The anti-conspiracists wrongly assume that the more impersonal or wider the lens, the more profound an analysis. By this logic, the elite are absolved of conscious intent and deliberate pursuit of nefarious self-interest, as if everything is done by incidental chance or out of incompetence. Not to say efficacy applies without exception, but it has become a required gesture to disassociate oneself from "conspiracies" to maintain credibility  --  ironically even by those who are often the target of such smears themselves.

This applies not only to mainstream media and academics, but even leading progressive figures who have a mechanical, unthinking resistance to assigning intent or recognizing the existence of hidden agendas. As a result, it disappears the class interests of the ruling elite and ultimately assists them in providing cover for their crimes. With the exception of the Kennedy assassination -- coincidentally the subject of a new epic chart-topping song by Bob Dylan -- nowhere has there been more hostility to 'conspiracism' than regarding the events of 9/11. Just as they assailed Parenti, David Talbot and others for challenging the Warren Commission's 'lone gunman' theory, leading figures on the left such as Noam Chomsky and the late Alexander Cockburn railed against the 9/11 Truth movement and today it is often wrongly equated with right-wing politics, an unlikely trajectory given it occurred under an arch-conservative administration but an inevitable result of the pseudo-left's aversion to "conspiracies." If polls are any indication, the average American certainly disagrees with such elitist misleaders as to the believability of the sham 9/11 Commission findings, yet another example of how out-of-touch the faux-left is with ordinary people.

A more recent example was an article by left-wing journalist Ben Norton proclaiming that to call 9/11 a false flag or an "inside job" is " fundamentally a right-wing conspiracy ", in complete disregard of the many dedicated truther activists on the left since its inception. Norton insists the 9/11 attacks were simply "blowback", or an unintended consequence of previous U.S. foreign policy support for the mujahideen in Afghanistan against the Soviets during the 1980s which later gave birth to Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Norton argues " Al-Qaeda's unofficial strategic alliance with the US eventually broke down " resulting in 9/11 as retaliation, completely overlooking that Washington was still supporting jihadist factions during the 1990s in Bosnia (two of which would be alleged 9/11 hijackers) and Kosovo in the Yugoslav wars against Serbia, even while the U.S. was ostensibly pursuing bin Laden for the bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa in 1998 and the USS Cole in 2000.

A 1997 Congressional document by the Republican Policy Committee (RPC) throws light on how Washington never discontinued its practice in Afghanistan of using jihadist proxies to achieve its foreign policy goals in the Balkans. Although it was a partisan GOP attack meant to discredit then-U.S. President Bill Clinton, nevertheless the memo accurately presents how the U.S. had " turned Bosnia into a Militant Islamic Base ":

"In short, the Clinton administration's policy of facilitating the delivery of arms to the Bosnian Muslims made it the de facto partner of an international network of governments and organizations pursuing their own agenda in Bosnia: the promotion of Islamic revolution in Europe. That network not only involves Iran but Brunei, Malaysia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan (a key ally of Iran), and Turkey, together with front groups supposedly pursuing humanitarian and cultural activities. For example, one such group about which details have come to light is the Third World Relief Agency (TWRA), a Sudan-based, phoney humanitarian organization which has been a major link in the arms pipeline to Bosnia. TWRA is believed to be connected with such fixtures of the Islamic terror network as Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman (the convicted mastermind behind the 1993 World Trade Center bombing) and Osama Bin Laden , a wealthy Saudi émigré believed to bankroll numerous militant groups "

It was also in Bosnia where a raid was conducted in 2002 by local police at the Sarajevo branch of a Saudi-based purported charitable organization, Benevolence International Foundation, which was discovered to be a front for Al-Qaeda. Seized on the premises was a document, dubbed the "Golden Chain" , which listed the major financial sponsors of the terrorist organization to be numerous Saudi business and government figures, including some of Osama bin Laden's own brothers. By the 9/11 Commission Report 's own admission, this same fake Islamic charity " supported the Bosnian Muslims in their conflict with Serbia " at the same time as the CIA.

It cannot go without mentioning that the common link between Al-Qaeda and subsequent extremist groups like ISIS/Daesh and Boko Haram is the doctrine of Wahhabism, the puritanical sect of Sunni Islam practiced in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and founded in the 18th century by Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, the religious leader who formed an alliance with the founder of the first Saudi state, Muhammad bin Saud, whose descendants make up the House of Saud royal family. The ultra-orthodox teachings of Wahhabism were initially rejected in the Middle East but reestablished by British colonialism which aligned with the Saud family in order to use their intolerant strain of Islam to undermine the Ottoman empire in a divide-and-conquer strategy. In a speech to the House of Commons in 1921, Winston Churchill admitted the Saudis to be " intolerant, well-armed and bloodthirsty ."

This did not stop the British from supporting the House of Saud so long as it was in the interest of Western imperialism, an unholy alliance which continues to this day. However, U.S.-Saudi relations did come under scrutiny when the infamous 28 redacted pages of the December 2002 report of the "Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities before and after the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001" conducted by the Senate and House Select Committees on Intelligence were finally disclosed in 2016. The section revealed not only the numerous U.S. intelligence failures in the lead-up to the attacks but the long suspected culpability of Saudi Arabia, whose nationals were not the focus of counterterrorism because of Riyadh's status as a U.S. ally. The declassified pages show that some of the hijackers, 15 of them Saudi citizens, received financial and logistical support from individuals linked to the Saudi government, which FBI sources believed at least two of which to be Saudi intelligence officers. One of those Saudi agents received large payments from Princess Haifa, the wife of Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan, a stipend from the latter's bank account which inevitably went from the go-betweens to the sleeper cell.

President George W. Bush and Prince Bandar bin Sultan at Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas in 2002

A key member of the House of Saud and then-Saudi Ambassador to the U.S., Prince Bandar has such a long and close relationship to the Bush family he was given the nickname "Bandar Bush." For obvious reasons, when the congressional joint inquiry report was first published in 2003, the 28-page portion on the Saudi ties to the attacks was completely censored at the insistence of the Bush administration. Yet the Bush family's connection to the Gulf state kingdom is not limited to the ruling monarchy but includes one of the petrodollar theocracy's other wealthiest families --  the bin Laden family itself. While Michael Moore's film Fahrenheit 9/11 mostly whitewashed the real conspiracy of 9/11 , it did reveal that numerous unquestioned members of the bin Laden family were given special treatment and suspiciously evacuated on secret flights out of the U.S. shortly after the attacks in coordination with the Saudi government.

The Bush-bin Laden connection goes all the way back to the beginning of George W. Bush's business career prior to his political involvement in 1976 with the founding of an oil drilling company, Arbusto Energy, whose earliest investors included a Texas businessman and fellow reservist in the Texas Air National Guard, James R. Bath, who oddly enough was the American liaison for Salem bin Laden, Osama's half brother. To put it differently, the bin Laden family and its construction fortune helped finance Bush's start in the oil industry, a relationship that would continue through the 1990s with Harken Energy, later the recipient of an offshore oil contract in Iraq's reconstruction alongside Dick Cheney's Halliburton. The Bush dynasty's financial ties to both the Saudi royals and bin Laden family went on as co-investors in the Carlyle Group private equity firm where the elder Bush's previous government service contacts were exploited for financial gain. In fact, on the morning of 9/11, Bush Sr. just happened to be attending a Carlyle business conference where another bin Laden sibling was the guest of honor in what we are supposed to believe is another astounding coincidence. Just days later, Shafiq bin Laden would be spirited off on a chartered flight back to Saudi Arabia in an exodus overseen by Prince Bandar himself.

Osama bin Laden himself also got an evacuation of sorts when the U.S. invaded Afghanistan in 2001. It was legendary Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh who first reported that bin Laden and thousands of other Al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters were suspiciously allowed to escape to Pakistan in an evacuation dubbed the 'airlift of evil.' This was corroborated in a leaked 2009 Hillary Clinton State Department email published by WikiLeaks regarding a Senate report on the Battle of Tora Bora and bin Laden's escape where Clinton advisor Sidney Blumenthal is shown discussing the controversial airlift as having been requested by Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf and approved by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney -- but don't dare call it a conspiracy:

"Gary Berntsen, the head of the CIA armed operation in eastern Afghanistan, is a major source for the report. I am in contact with him and have heard his entire story at length, key parts of which are not in his book, Jawbreaker, or in the Senate report. In particular , the story of the Kunduz airlift of the bulk of key AQ and Taliban leaders, at the request of Musharaff and per order Cheney/Rumsfeld , is absent."

Could it have anything to do with just a few years earlier the Taliban visiting Texas when Bush was Governor to discuss with the Unocal Corporation the construction of a gas pipeline through Afghanistan into Pakistan? It is also well known that the Pakistani government and its Inter-Services Intelligence Agency (ISI) had supported the Taliban for decades and during the 1980s had been the CIA's main conduit for supplying arms to the Afghan mujahideen, including bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri's Maktab al-Khidamat, the organizational precursor to Al-Qaeda. As shown in the documentary 9/11: Press for Truth , little in their relations changed in the years between the Afghan-Soviet war and 9/11, as ISI director Mahmud Ahmed was reportedly busted wiring $100,000 to alleged hijacker ringleader Mohamed Atta not long before the WTC attacks. Throughout 2001 both before and after 9/11, General Ahmed had repeatedly visited the U.S. and met with top Pentagon and Bush administration officials, including CIA Director George Tenet, making Prince Bandar not the only figure to have been caught financing the operation and where a direct line can be drawn between the White House and the hijackers.

While Bandar has thus far eluded justice, one year after the release of the 28 pages a lawsuit was filed on behalf of the families of the victims against the government of Saudi Arabia which presented new evidence that two years prior to the attacks in 1999, the Saudi Embassy paid for the flights of two Saudi agents living undercover in the U.S. to fly from Phoenix to Washington " in a dry run for the 9/11 attacks " where they attempted to breach the cockpit and test flight security. This means the Saudi government was likely involved in planning the attacks from the very beginning, in addition to providing the subsidies and patsy hijacker personnel for the smokescreen of blaming Al-Qaeda and making bin Laden the fall guy, whose links to 9/11 are tenuous at best. After all, the "confession" from supposed planner Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was extracted only after his being water-boarded 183 times while bin Laden himself initially denied any role in the attacks before questionable videos were released of his admittance.

The Saudi nationals who participated in the hijacking rehearsal were posing as students. However, the Sunni dictatorship was not the only country conducting a mass espionage operation in the U.S. prior to 9/11 under such a front. In the first half of 2001, several U.S. federal law enforcement agencies documented more than 130 different instances of young Israelis impersonating "art students" while aggressively trying to penetrate the security of various government and military facilities as part of a Mossad spy ring. Several of the Israelis were found to be living in locations within the near vicinity of the hijackers as if they were eavesdropping on them. The discovery of the Israeli operation raised many questions, namely whether Mossad had advanced knowledge or involvement in 9/11. Ironically, Fox News of all places was one of the few outlets to cover the story in a four-part series which never re-aired and was eventually scrubbed from the network website.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/GnWSNI7rKf0

The Israeli "art student" mystery never gained traction in the rest of the media, much like another suspicious case in the " Dancing Israelis ", a smaller group of Mossad spies posing as furnishing movers who were arrested in New Jersey on the morning of 9/11 taking celebratory pictures with the twin towers burning in the background of the Manhattan skyline. The five men were not only physically present at the waterfront prior to the first plane impact but found with thousands of dollars in cash, box-cutters, fake passports, and Arab clothing after they were reported for suspicious behavior and intercepted at the Lincoln tunnel heading into Manhattan. Initially misreported as Arabs by the media, the men were connected to Mossad by an FBI database and held for five months before their deportation to Israel while the owner of the front moving company fled to Jerusalem before further questioning. It should be noted that if Israel were to have participated in a 'false flag' attack on the U.S., it would not have been the first time. During the Six-Day War in 1967, the Israeli Air Force and Navy launched an unprovoked attack on the USS Liberty , a U.S. Navy spy ship that was surveilling the Arab-Israeli conflict from international waters in the Mediterranean, an "accidental" assault which killed 34 Americans in an attempt to blame Egypt and provoke U.S. intervention.

If Israel turned out to be co-conspirators with the Saudis, it too is not as unlikely a scenario as it may seem. Wrongly assumed to be sworn enemies, it is an open secret that the two British-created states have maintained a historical covert alliance since the end of World War I when the first monarch of the modern Saudi state, King Abdulaziz Ibn Saud, defeated his rival the Sharif of Mecca who opposed the Balfour Declaration. Authored by British Foreign Secretary Lord Balfour and presented to Zionist leader Baron Rothschild, the 1917 letter guaranteed a Jewish homeland in Palestine by colonization with European Jews. Once Sharif was out the way, the Zionist movement had the green light to move forward with its colonial project. Although Ibn Saud publicly opposed Zionism, behind the scenes he negotiated with them through an intermediary in his advisor, British agent St. John Philby, who proposed a £20 million compensation to the Saudi king for delivering Palestine to the Jews.

Ibn Saud communicated his willingness to compromise in a 1940 letter from Philby to Chaim Weizmann, the president of the World Zionist Organization and later the first Israeli president. However, Philby himself was an anti-Zionist and sabotaged the plan by leaking it to other Arab leaders who voiced their vehement opposition and it was only after this exposure that the Saudi king claimed to have turned down the bribe, something the Zionists would only solicit if they thought he would accept. Ever since, the ideologies of Saudi Wahhabism and Israeli Zionism have been center to the West's destabilization of the Middle East which contrary to misperceptions was not uniquely plagued by conflict historically more than the Occident until the West nurtured Salafism and Zionism. Predictably, discussing either the Saudi or Israeli role in 9/11 has been strictly forbidden in corporate media, since both are among Washington's geo-strategic allies and each hold immense lobbying power over large media institutions.

Less than five months after 9/11, Bush notoriously declared the nations of Iran, Iraq and North Korea as comprising an "axis of evil" in his 2002 state of the union address. In reality, the phrase is better suited to describe the tripartite of Saudi Arabia, Israel, and the U.S. government itself who are likely the real trio of conspirators behind 9/11. The infamous choice of words were attributed to neoconservative pundit and Bush speechwriter, David Frum, who claimed to have taken inspiration from Franklin D. Roosevelt's " a date that will live infamy " speech given the day after the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor in 1941. It was a continuation of a theme present in the manifesto of the neoconservative cabal authored one year prior to 9/11  --  " Rebuilding America's Defenses " by the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) think tank, whose members included Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and Jeb Bush. The strategic military blueprint called for a massive increase in U.S. defense spending in order to " fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars" before ominously predicting:

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

Ten members of PNAC would be subsequently appointed to positions in the Bush White House where their vision of a "new Pearl Harbor" conveniently materialized. Then again, there is plenty of evidence that Pearl Harbor itself was a 'false flag', or that U.S. intelligence and President Franklin D. Roosevelt had foreknowledge of an impending Japanese attack on the naval base in Oahu, Hawaii, on December 7th, 1941. As pointed out by the film Loose Change, it is probable that Roosevelt allowed it to happen on purpose in order to win public support for a U.S. entry into the European theatre of World War II, a move opposed by a majority of Americans prior to the 'surprise' Japanese attack. Given what is known about Pearl Harbor and the abandoned Operation Northwoods , which proposed both fabricating and committing terrorist attacks on civilian aircraft to be pinned on Fidel Castro in order to justify a U.S. invasion of Cuba in 1962, there are no grounds to assume that such false flag operations were ever phased out of military procedure before 9/11 or since.

Loose Change also made a useful historical analogy between 9/11 and the Reichstag fire, the 1933 arson attack on the German parliament building that occurred a month after Adolf Hitler was inaugurated as Chancellor and pinned on a 24-year old half-blind Dutch communist named Marinus van der Lubbe. While there is no denying the incident was used a pretext by the Nazi regime to consolidate power and suspend law and order, there is still a heated debate between historians as to whether van der Lubbe was the real culprit. However, it was coincidentally in 2001 when a group of historians uncovered evidence that a Nazi stormtrooper who died under mysterious circumstances in 1933 had previously confessed to prosecutors that members of Hitler's Storm Detachment had set fire to the edifice under orders from paramilitary leader Karl Ernst, lending credence to the widely held suspicion that it was a Nazi-engineered 'false flag' all along.

Most Americans are unaware that a similar coup d'etat nearly took place during the same year in the United States in an attempt to remove President Franklin D. Roosevelt and install an authoritarian government modeled on Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany as part of a scheme hatched by an inner circle of right-wing bankers otherwise known as the the 'Business Plot.' It was a conspiracy that only became public after it was heroically thwarted by a whistleblower in decorated Marine Corps veteran turned anti-imperialist, Major General Smedley Butler, after he was recruited to form the junta. Incredibly, one of the prominent business figures implicated in the putsch was none other than future Connecticut Senator Prescott Bush , George H.W. Bush's father and George W. Bush's grandfather, who at the time was the director and shareholder of a bank owned by German industrialist and prominent Nazi financier Fritz Thyssen seized by the U.S. government under the Trading with the Enemy Act.

After his transformation, in 1935 Smedley Butler famously penned War is a Racket and there is perhaps no better phrase that would sum up the so-called 'War on Terror' today. Not only did the American Reichstag fire of 9/11 trigger a domestic police state transformation that overrode the U.S. constitution in an American equivalent of the 1933 Enabling Act and the Heimatschutz ( "homeland protection" ) defense forces with the passing of the USA-Patriot Act and founding of the Department of Homeland Security, but it fulfilled the prophecy of political scientist Samuel Huntington's The Clash of Civilizations in a face-off between Islam and Christianity abroad. The prediction that religion and culture would be the primary source of geopolitical conflict in the post-Cold War world was an apocalyptic paradigm envisioned by right-wing orientalist philosophers like Huntington and Bernard Lewis which the PNAC neocon ideologues put into practice. Today, the ongoing COVID-19 crisis appears likely to have similar broad and long-term political, social and economic consequences and those who have doubts about the official explanation for the pandemic can hardly be blamed for their distrust given this history unless the lessons of 9/11 have gone unlearned.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/dUgCgNw4EZg

SHARE THIS ARTICLE.



freefall
5 months ago
,

It's hard to have much sympathy for the American people at this point. They have looked the other way regarding all of this as long as they have their brand of liar in the White House.

Whether they can be duped into killing more peasants elsewhere or are left to their hunger games here at home, this country is finished.

tRuTh_Be_ToLd freefall 5 months ago ,

+1. Sadly, your comment is remarkably accurate. I don't know whether America is FINISHED just yet, though, because there's still plenty remaining to pillage from the American SHEEPLE.

Oh wait, what is the so-called "National Debt" now? (Answer: $22-23 TRILLION).

Of course, despite the fact that the so-called "National Debt" is MATHEMATICALLY NEVER RE-PAYABLE, the more important fact, is that We, the People, DO NOT OWE the G.D. Central Bankers ONE RED PENNY.

tRuTh_Be_ToLd • 5 months ago ,

"9/11 Truth: America Under Lockdown For Nearly Two Decades"?

ONLY TWO decades? How about "America Under MENTAL Lockdown" since Nov. 22, 1963, if not since Dec. 23, 1913?

More OVERTLY, the TSA HAS certainly been physically fondling Family Jewels since 9/11.

Drake 5 months ago ,

From this article:

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary"

- H.L. Mencken

From the "Jew" Henry Kissinger:

"Today Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they with be grateful! This is especially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will pledge with world leaders to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well being granted to them by their world government."

- Henry Kissinger in an address to the Bilderberg meeting at Evian, France, May 21, 1992.

[Sep 23, 2020] NEVER FORGET- In 2020, a 4-year Study Found that -Fire Did Not Cause Building 7's Collapse on 9-11-

Sep 23, 2020 | www.blacklistednews.com

BY MATT AGORIST

As the media frenzy around 9/11 reminds us today to "never forget" there is some crucial information that the establishment absolutely wants all Americans to forget -- the overwhelming abundance of evidence that pokes serious holes in the official narrative of what happened that fateful day.

On September 11, 2001, at 5:20 p.m., World Trade Center Building 7 suddenly collapsed into its own footprint, falling at free fall speed for 2.5 seconds of its seven-second complete destruction. WTC 7 was not hit by a plane. After it collapsed, Americans were told that office fires caused a unique -- never before seen -- complete architectural failure leading to the building collapsing into its own footprint at the rate of gravity.

Despite calls for the evidence to be preserved, New York City officials had the building's debris removed and destroyed in the ensuing weeks and months, preventing a proper forensic investigation from ever taking place. Seven years later, federal investigators concluded that WTC 7 was the first steel-framed high-rise ever to have collapsed solely as a result of normal office fires.

Naturally, skeptics have been questioning the official story for some time and after moving from the realm of conspiracy theory into the realm of science, this extensive university study has found that the official story of fire causing the collapse is simply not true.

As TFTP reported in April, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth announced the completed partnership with the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) in their final report of an in depth four-year study on what they say actually brought down WTC 7. According to the press release, contrary to the conclusions of NIST, the UAF research team finds that the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11 was not caused by fires but instead was caused by the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building.

"Our study found that the fires in WTC 7 could not have caused the observed collapse," said Professor Leroy Hulsey, the study's principal investigator. "The only way it could have fallen in the observed manner is by the near-simultaneous failure of every column."

The extensive four-year study was was funded by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth), a nonprofit organization representing more than 3,000 architects and engineers who have signed the organization's petition calling for new investigation into the destruction of the three World Trade Center towers on 9/11.

"We are proud to have supported the University of Alaska Fairbanks and Professor Leroy Hulsey in conducting a genuinely scientific study into the reasons for this building's collapse," said Richard Gage, president and founder of AE911Truth. "It is now incumbent upon the building community, the media, and government officials to reckon with the implications of these findings and launch a new full-scale investigation."

According to the study's authors:

The UAF research team utilized three approaches for examining the structural response of WTC 7 to the conditions that may have occurred on September 11, 2001.

First, we simulated the local structural response to fire loading that may have occurred below Floor 13, where most of the fires in WTC 7 are reported to have occurred.

Second, we supplemented our own simulation by examining the collapse initiation hypothesis developed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).

Third, we simulated a number of scenarios within the overall structural system in order to determine what types of local failures and their locations may have caused the total collapse to occur as observed.

After conducting comprehensive modeling and studying countless scenarios, the study's authors, J. Leroy Hulsey, Ph.D., P.E., S.E., UAF, Zhili Quan, Ph.D., Bridge Engineer South Carolina Department of Transportation, and Feng Xiao, Ph.D., Associate Professor Nanjing University of Science and Technology Department of Civil Engineering, concluded the following:

Fire did not cause the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11, contrary to the conclusions of NIST and private engineering firms that studied the collapse. The secondary conclusion of our study is that the collapse of WTC 7 was a global failure involving the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building.

The results of this study cannot be dismissed. It completely destroys the narrative that has been shoved down the throats of Americans for nearly two decades. What's more, this study backs up thousands of other researchers, scientists, and engineers who have been pointing this out for years.

As TFTP reported last July, history was made in regard to 9/11 as New York area fire commissioners called for a new investigation into the tragic events that unfolded that day. The resolution called for a new investigation due to the "overwhelming evidence" that "pre-planted explosives . . . caused the destruction of the three World Trade Center buildings."

On July 24, 2019, the Franklin Square and Munson Fire District , which oversees a volunteer fire department serving a hamlet of 30,000 residents just outside of Queens, New York, became the first legislative body in the country to officially support a new investigation into the events of 9/11, according to Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

The resolution calling for a new investigation was drafted by Commissioner Christopher Gioia and it was immediately and unanimously approved by the five commissioners.

"We're a tight-knit community and we never forget our fallen brothers and sisters. You better believe that when the entire fire service of New York State is on board, we will be an unstoppable force," said Commissioner Christopher Gioia, adding, "We were the first fire district to pass this resolution. We won't be the last."

Source: The Free Thought Project

Matt Agorist is an honorably discharged veteran of the USMC and former intelligence operator directly tasked by the NSA. This prior experience gives him unique insight into the world of government corruption and the American police state. Agorist has been an independent journalist for over a decade and has been featured on mainstream networks around the world. Agorist is also the Editor at Large at the Free Thought Project. Follow @MattAgorist on Twitter , Steemit , and now on Minds.

[Sep 23, 2020] 19 Years Later, Questions Still Hang Over the 9-11 Attacks

Sep 23, 2020 | www.blacklistednews.com

19 YEARS LATER, QUESTIONS STILL HANG OVER THE 9/11 ATTACKS Published: September 13, 2020
Share | Print This

undefined Twitter Facebook Email Pinterest Reddit
SOURCE: DERRICK BROZE, THE LAST AMERICAN VAGABOND AFTER NEARLY TWO DECADES, IT SHOULD BE PERFECTLY CLEAR TO AMERICANS THAT THE U.S. GOVERNMENT HAS NO INTEREST IN GETTING TO THE BOTTOM OF THE 9/11 FALSE FLAG. WHATEVER POTENTIAL REMAINS FOR THE TRUTH TO BE SET FREE WILL LARGELY BE DETERMINED BY THE ACTIVISTS, JOURNALISTS, AND RESEARCHERS WHO MAKE UP THE 9/11 TRUTH MOVEMENT.

When historians look back upon 2020, they will focus their efforts on understanding the innumerable ways in which the COVID-19 crisis has affected the world. There will be books, documentaries, dissertations, and news specials interviewing the politicians and government officials who played major roles in the events currently unfolding before our eyes. Perhaps, in time, the questions surrounding the limitations of the PCR test, the variables with the numbers of COVID-19 cases, and concerns about foreknowledge will be explored in a logical and fact-based manner. Or, as is the case with the attacks of September 11, 2001, the questions will be ignored by the masses and the media, while a steadily increasing portion of the population continues to search for the answers which are needed to fully grasp the scope and cost of the false flag.

As people from all over the world participate in ceremonies and events to mark the anniversary of 9/11, the many remaining questions surrounding the attacks loom large. Our collective minds may be focused on the fears and ramifications related to COVID-19, but understanding the truth about 9/11 – the last major global event to affect billions of people – is still an extremely vital part of unraveling the control narrative spun by the Predator Class.

JUSTICE RISING

On the 19th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks the 9/11 Truth movement is continuing their nearly two decades battle for the unvarnished facts. The 9/11 Truth movement includes victims, their families, and experts in a range of fields who are skeptical of the government's official line on 9/11. Some of the groups include Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth , Firefighters for 9/11 Truth & Unity, Pilots for 9/11 Truth , 9/11 Families United for Justice Against Terrorism, Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice , and other local activist groups and individuals from around the globe. It's a loose-knit movement without an official position, and the opinions, theories and ideas espoused by members often conflict with one another. However, the movement is united by the belief that the official narrative promoted by the U.S. government is full of holes.

The non-profit Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth has been a vital component of the movement since the mid-2000's, organizing a number of conferences, protests, outreach events, and documentary screenings. For the 19th anniversary, AE for 9/11 Truth is organizing an online conference called "Justice Rising," from Friday, September 11, to Sunday, September 13. The event will examine "the continuing struggle for 9/11 justice and the destructive trajectory of the post-9/11 world." The conference will go for three hours each day and will be open to all free of charge.

On Friday evening the conference will feature Mick Harrison of the Lawyers' Committee for 9/11 Inquiry to discuss the latest on the "request for correction " to the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) 2008 report on World Trade Center 7. Many 9/11 Truth researchers focus on the mysterious collapse of WTC7 as the smoking gun evidence that Americans were lied to about the attacks. WTC7 was not hit by a plane, yet it collapsed at 5:20 p.m. on Sept. 11, 2001. According to the NIST, the collapse was caused by office fires leading to thermal expansion of the building's supportive columns and girders.

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth submitted the "request for correction" to NIST on April 15, 2020, demanding the agency revise their position on the collapse of WTC7. AE 9/11 Truth says they provided a detailed eight point report showing that office fires could not have caused the collapse of the building. However, on August 28, NIST issued its initial decision denying the request for correction that ten 9/11 family members and 88 architects and structural engineers submitted.

"Our request described in meticulous detail eight items of information in NIST's Building 7 report that violated the federal Data Quality Act and NIST's Information Quality Standards," AE 9/11 Truth writes. "Our goal was to compel NIST to rectify these violations and in so doing reverse its unsupported conclusion that fire was the cause of Building 7's collapse."

AE also noted that NIST failed to meet their obligation by providing a "point-by-point response to all relevant arguments contained in the request," as required by the Data Quality Act. The non-profit made up of more than 3,000 architects and engineers stated that NIST's response was a "blatant avoidance of the arguments and facts contained in the request" designed with the intention of "misleading the uninformed reader." AE 9/11 Truth plans to appeal the decision by September 27, 2020.

The 19th anniversary Justice Rising conference will also feature three "pioneers" of the 9/11 Truth movement, including David Ray Griffin, Niels Harrit, and Steven Jones. All three men have been instrumental in providing clarity on the many questions surrounding the 9/11 attacks. Griffin is an emeritus professor of philosophy of religion and theology at Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Graduate University. He has published fourteen books which deal specifically with 9/11, including The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11 , published in 2004.

Niels Harrit served as associate professor of chemistry at the University of Copenhagen from 1971 to 2009, and is the author of more than 60 published peer-reviewed papers. Since 2007 he has been actively involved in the global movement for 9/11 truth and is the lead author of a scientific paper, published in April 2009, describing the findings of active thermitic material in the dust from the collapses of World Trade Center Buildings 1, 2 and 7. It is this presence of thermitic dust which has lead researchers to conclude that explosive charges were placed throughout the buildings to assist in their controlled demolition

https://www.youtube.com/embed/Wq-0JIR38V0?enablejsapi=1&autoplay=0&cc_load_policy=0&iv_load_policy=1&loop=0&modestbranding=0&rel=1&fs=1&playsinline=0&autohide=2&theme=dark&color=red&controls=1&

Steven Jones is a former professor of physics at Brigham Young University. Jones was the initiator of research for the peer-reviewed paper, "Active Thermitic Material Observed in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe," published in the Open Chemical Physics Journal . Steven is also the author of the influential 2005 paper, "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?"

One of the most profound aspects of the Justice Rising conference will be a discussion with Dr. Leroy Hulsey, former professor at the University of Alaska Fairbanks who led a multi-year engineering study evaluating whether fire caused the collapse of WTC7 on September 11, 2001. Hulsey's study is the subject of an upcoming documentary called SEVEN , directed by Dylan Avery, the director behind the infamous 9/11 documentary, Loose Change .

Dr. Hulsey's conclusions that fire could not have caused the collapse of World Trade Center 7 should have sent shockwaves through the American political scene, but a lack of reporting on the topic ensured that only those in the 9/11 Truth movement understood the implications. Hulsey has previously given presentations detailing how his team eliminated fire as the cause of the collapse of the 47-story building. Hulsey explained that NIST's report on the collapse found fires on floors 7 through 9, 11 through 14, 19, 22, 29, and 30. However, there is no evidence of fire below floor 7, Hulsey said.

The 9/11 Truth community has long pointed to the unique nature of the collapse of the WTC towers. Never before have fires alone brought down steel skyscrapers. For many in the movement, Dr. Hulsey's studies are welcomed but also met with skepticism. This is because immediately following 9/11, activists and researchers have been pointing out the numerous reports and descriptions of explosions taking place at the base of the Twin Towers. Now, some 9/11 Truthers wonder if Hulsey's study will make a difference when the public has largely been indoctrinated to accept the U.S. government's version of events.

Fourteen years ago, AE 9/11 Truth produced the article, 118 Witnesses: The Firefighters' Testimony to Explosions in the Twin Towers, a review of interviews conducted with 503 members of the New York Fire Department (FDNY) in the weeks and months after 9/11. The review revealed that 118 firefighters described witnessing what they interpreted to be explosions.

More recently, AE has released a report which examined more than 70 hours of 9/11 news coverage. The report, How 36 Reporters Brought Us the Twin Towers' Explosive Demolition on 9/11 , sheds light on how the destruction of the Twin Towers was initially being reported. According to AE 9/11 Truth, the review of the news coverage " reveals that the hypothesis of explosions bringing down the Twin Towers was not only prevalent among reporters covering the events in New York City on 9/11 but was, in fact, the dominant hypothesis."

The 36 reporters who brought us the Twin Towers' explosive demolition on 9/11 include, by network, ABC's George Stephanopoulos and Cynthia McFadden ; CBS's Harold Dow , Tom Flynn , Mika Brzezinski , and Carol Marin (appearing on WCBS); NBC's Pat Dawson and Anne Thompson ; CNN's Aaron Brown , Rose Arce , Patty Sabga , and Alan Dodds Frank ; Fox News' David Lee Miller and Rick Leventhal ; MSNBC's Ashleigh Banfield and Rick Sanchez ; CNBC's John Bussey , Ron Insana , and Bob Pisani ; WABC's N.J. Burkett , Michelle Charlesworth , Nina Pineda , Cheryl Fiandaca , and Joe Torres ; WCBS's John Slattery , Marcella Palmer , Vince DeMentri , and Marcia Kramer ; WNBC's Walter Perez ; New York 1's Kristen Shaughnessy , Andrew Siff , John Schiumo , and Andrew Kirtzman ; USA Today's Jack Kelley ; and two unidentified reporters ( 1 and 2 ) who attended a press conference with NYC Mayor Giuliani and New York Governor Pataki.

THE TRUTH REMAINS BURIED

While AE 9/11 Truth remains committed to exposing the flaws in NIST's fire/ thermal expansion theory, other family members and journalists are dedicated to uncovering the truth about the funding of the attacks and the many data that remain classified.

For several years, family members were fighting to secure the release of the now-declassified 28-pages of the "Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001." Although the final report amounts to over 800 pages, the 28 pages were classified by former President George W. Bush shortly after the report was released in 2002. The papers detail the story of Saudi nationals suspected of being Saudi intelligence agents involved in the terror attacks. In July 2016, after nearly 15 years of secrecy and resistance from the Bush and Obama administrations, the report was released to the public and the family members of the victims of the 9/11 terror attacks.

The release of the 28 pages in conjunction with the passage of the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorisms Act (JASTA) ensured the 9/11 victims will have a day in court. As Dan Christensen of the Florida Bulldog recently noted , "the last, best chance to obtain actual answers in our lifetime is likely the immense lawsuit brought by thousands of 9/11 victims and families that's now inching through U.S. District Court in New York City."

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has become the focus of the 9/11 victims families lawsuit "for knowingly providing material support and resources to the al Qaeda terrorist organization and facilitating the September 11 th attacks" in 2001. The Obama administration fought the passing of the bill, eventually vetoing the legislation before Congress voted to override the former President. While Donald Trump paid lip service to finding out what was in the "secret papers," he has since become one of the most vocal supporters of the Saudi Kingdom, including supporting an unprecedented weapons deal which fuel the human rights violations in Yemen .

The Trump Administration – through the Department of Justice and FBI – has continued the requirements for secrecy in the courtroom. "The government continues to resist producing thousands of more detailed records, claiming that such material concerning apparent Saudi involvement prior to 9/11 is a state secret," the Bulldog reports. "In April, Attorney General William Barr and then-Acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell swore public declarations that their personal assertions of the "state secrets privilege" were necessary to "protect the national security interests of the United States.""

The 9/11 families have attempted to push back on the government's state secrets claims, but have faced difficulty due to the already secretive nature of the court room proceedings. For example, the government's reasoning for state secrets arguments are not even available to the attorneys representing the families. Christensen notes that only last week the U.S. government filed a classified declaration from Michael H. Glasheen, acting deputy director, operations branch, counterterrorism division of the FBI. However, the declaration is only able to be seen by the judge, with the plaintiffs and the public left in the dark completely.

Interestingly, Christensen notes that the secret assertions are often classified pursuant to Presidential Executive Order 13526 , signed by former President Obama on Dec. 29, 2009. The order essentially states that the U.S. government believes that national security is more important than "the free flow of information."

After nearly two decades, it should be perfectly clear to Americans – and those around the world affected by American foreign policy – that the U.S. government has no interest in getting to the bottom of the 9/11 false flag. Whatever potential remains for the truth to be set free will largely be determined by the activists, journalists, and researchers who make up the 9/11 Truth movement.

Will the truth die on the vine, like so many other efforts to awaken the masses? Or will the people of the world finally wake up to the lies that surround the official version of the attacks of September 11, 2001?

[Sep 23, 2020] America's Post 9-11 Wars Have Forced 37 Million People From Their Homes- New Study

Sep 23, 2020 | www.blacklistednews.com

AMERICA'S POST 9/11 WARS HAVE FORCED 37 MILLION PEOPLE FROM THEIR HOMES: NEW STUDY Published: September 11, 2020
Share | Print This

undefined Twitter Facebook Email Pinterest Reddit
SOURCE: ZEROHEDGE

Just ahead of the 19th anniversary commemorating the tragic events of September 11, 2001 when America came under attack, the anti-interventionist thinktank The Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft has featured a study detailing the millions of people displaced across the globe by US foreign combat operations in the wake of 9/11 .

"The wars the U.S. government has fought since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, have forced 37 million people -- and perhaps as many as 59 million -- from their homes , according to a newly released report from American University and Brown University's Costs of War Project ," the report introduces .

It's being called "the first calculation of its kind" given neither the Pentagon, nor State Department or any other federal agency has kept track of the mass displacements.

The study identifies that out of this 39 million total, eight of the most violent wars and 'counter-insurgency campaigns' are responsible for the vast majority of displacements. They are Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, the Philippines, Somalia, Syria and Yemen.

These wars were executed or overseen either by the Bush, Obama, or spanning into the Trump administration.

To drive home the magnitude, The Quincy Institute underscores that "Displacing 37 million people is equivalent to removing nearly all the residents of the state of California or all the people in Texas and Virginia combined."

And further, "The figure is almost as large as the population of Canada ."

Wesley Clark's famous 2007 'Foreign Policy Coup' speech: "We're going to take out seven countries in five years" after 9/11:

https://www.youtube.com/embed/TY2DKzastu8

American military bases have also rapidly expanded across the globe in the wake of 9/11, mostly in Africa and the Middle East, as the following map produced by the Investigative Reporting Workshop (IRW) demonstrates.

"Until now, no one has known how many people the wars have displaced," the report emphasizes. "Indeed, most Americans are likely unaware that U.S. combat operations have taken place not only in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria, but also in 21 other nations since President George W. Bush announced a global war on terror ."

* * *

Here are the breakdown of post 9/11 mass displacements by country according to the Public Anthropology Clinic :

[Sep 12, 2020] Nineteen years since 9/11 Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman attempt to Infects Readers With 9/11 Dementia

Sep 12, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

psychohistorian , Sep 11 2020 16:05 utc | 2

The price for the worst tweet of the year goes to Paul Krugman .


bigger

In the real world the U.S. reacted to 9/11 by doing extremely bad and ridiculous things as well as this :

In the days, weeks, and months immediately following the 9/11 attacks, Arab-Americans, South Asian-Americans, Muslim-Americans, and Sikh-Americans were the targets of widespread hate violence. Many of the perpetrators of these acts of hate violence claimed they were acting patriotically by retaliating against those responsible for 9/11.
...
Just after September 11, numerous Arabs, Muslims, and individuals perceived to be Arab or Muslim were assaulted, and some killed, by individuals who believed they were responsible for or connected to the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. The first backlash killing occurred four days after September 11.

Balbir Singh Sodhi was shot to death on September 15 as he was planting flowers outside his Chevron gas station. The man who shot Sodhi, Frank Roque, had told an employee of an Applebee's restaurant that he was "going to go out and shoot some towel heads." Roque mistakenly thought Sodhi was Arab because Sodhi, an immigrant from India, had a beard and wore a turban as part of his Sikh faith. After shooting Sodhi, Roque drove to a Mobil gas station a few miles away and shot at a Lebanese-American clerk. He then drove to a home he once owned and shot and almost hit an Afghani man who was coming out the front door. When he was arrested two hours later, Roque shouted, "I stand for America all the way."

The next two killings were committed by a man named Mark Stroman. On September 15, 2001, Stroman shot and killed Waquar Hassan, an immigrant from Pakistan, at Hassan's grocery store in Dallas, Texas. On October 4, 2001, Stroman shot and killed Vasudev Patel, an immigrant from India and a naturalized U.S. citizen, while Patel was working at his Shell station convenience store. A store video camera recorded the killing, helping police to identify Stroman as the killer. Stroman later told a Dallas television station that he shot Hassan and Patel because, "We're at war. I did what I had to do. I did it to retaliate against those who retaliated against us."

Beyond these killings, there were more than a thousand other anti-Muslim or anti-Arab acts of hate which took the form of physical assaults, verbal harassment and intimidation, arson, attacks on mosques, vandalism, and other property damage.

Instead of "calming prejudice" the GB Bush administration institutionalized hate crimes:

First, in the weeks immediately following the September 11 attacks, the government began secretly arresting and detaining Arab, Muslim, and South Asian men. Within the first two months after the attacks, the government had detained at least 1,200 men.
...
Second, in November 2001, the Department of Justice began efforts to "interview" approximately 5,000 men between the ages of 18 and 33 from Middle Eastern or Muslim nations who had arrived in the United States within the previous two years on a temporary student, tourist, or business visa and were lawful residents of the United States. Four months later, the government announced it would seek to interview an additional 3,000 men from countries with an Al Qaeda presence.
...
Third, in September 2002, the government implemented a "Special Registration" program also known as NSEERS (National Security Entry-Exit Registration System), requiring immigrant men from 26 mostly Muslim countries to register their name, address, telephone number, place of birth, date of arrival in the United States, height, weight, hair and eye color, financial information and the addresses, birth dates and phone numbers of parents and any foreign friends with the government.

Besides all that a rather useless security theater was installed at U.S. airports which has costs many billions in lost time and productivity ever since. The Patriot Act was introduced which allowed for unlimited spying on private citizens. Wars were launched that were claimed to be justified by 9/11. These were "mass outbreaks of anti-Muslim sentiment and violence. Many were killed and maimed in them. People were tortured and vanished. All of this happened largely to applause of a majority of the U.S. people which were glued to 24 and dreamed of being "terrorist hunters".

Anyone with a functional memory knows that the U.S. reaction to 9/11 was anything but "pretty calm". It is ridiculous that Krugman is claiming that.

Posted by b at 15:46 UTC | Comments (73)

I find it a bit humorous b that you are critical of Krugman for his 911 dementia when for years many of us finance types have railed about how morally corrupt the logic and thinking of Paul Krugman is.

Paul Krugman is to economics what Bernie Sanders has become for the purported "left" side of the "right wing" uni-party....a sheep dog for the easily led.

Paul Krugman is an acolyte for the God of Mammon/global private finance elite.


Clueless Joe , Sep 11 2020 16:11 utc | 3

Paul is getting old. Looks like senile dementia isn't limited to Biden nowadays.

Red Ryder , Sep 11 2020 16:44 utc | 11

While spreading anger and hate toward Arab people, The Bush Administration rescued the many members of the Kingdom's family from all around the US and escorted their flights out of the US to safety in Saudi Arabia.

Distracting the public big time was Dick Cheney, VP, who insisted from the very next day that the plot to hit the Twin Towers was Saddam's plot.

So, the historical record and US response was skewed from the getgo. AQ and Bin Laden didn't concern the neocons. They wanted the US to go to Iraq again, and this time start a wide war that would spread to Syria and Lebanon and Iran.

It was easy times to spread fear and hate, and Cheney and the war mongers of CENTCOM were riding high. Americans were scared of all Arabs, all Sunnis, all Shiites, from anywhere. They were all the same in the public's mind. Enemies.

It was perfect and has led to 19 years of endless wars. Add ISIS and al Nusra and the Taliban and you have an endless soup of enemies.

Jackrabbit , Sep 11 2020 17:01 utc | 13

I'm coining a new term: "Empire apologist".

!!

michaelj72 , Sep 11 2020 19:59 utc | 35

krugman is a terrible shill for the neo-cons and liberal-interventionists of the 21st century

at my age, I shouldn't really be surprised any more by what american "intellectuals" and "nobel prize winners" say about anything..... but I am.

He's neo-liberal interventionist moron of the first rank, and saying what he did actually normalizes the war mania and war-mongering which has become so staple in mainstream thought and the "think tanks" and is now practically part of the american DNA and "culture".
shame on krugman

Hoarsewhisperer , Sep 11 2020 20:08 utc | 36

...
It appears the Deep State has attacked the USA's people twice in two decades--on 911 and with the decision to let as many die as possible by deliberately not doing anything to mitigate the impact of COVID-19 and allowing the real economy to atrophy so even more will die in the long run.
Posted by: karlof1 | Sep 11 2020 19:40 utc | 34

Talking about tilting at windmills - I'll never forget Robert Fisk angrily pointing out that the Yankees knew where to find Al CIA-duh because they extended the cave complex at Tora Bora to help Al CIA-duh, equipped with 10,000 US Stinger Missiles, kick the Russians out of Afghanistan in the 1980s!!!

(The Yankees had to wait for 10+ years to invade Afghanistan because it takes that long for Stingers to pass their Use By date)

Rob , Sep 11 2020 20:08 utc | 37

@michaelj72. "krugman is a terrible shill for the neo-cons and liberal-interventionists of the 21st century"

Actually, Paul Krugman was a strong and outspoken opponent of the Iraq War since early 2003 and possibly earlier. He was amongst the few mainstream liberal commentators to take that stand.

Jen , Sep 11 2020 21:02 utc | 44

If MoA readers and commenters were to read the entire series of Krugman's tweets, six in all, they will see mention of how the Bush govt began exploiting the events of 11 September 2001 almost immediately. Though the example Krugman actually uses would make most people cringe at what it suggests about the bubble he lives in and how far removed it is from most people's lives and experiences, and his reference to a "horrible war" does not mention either Afghanistan or Iraq.

It has to be said that Twitter is not designed very well for the kind of informal conversational commentary that people often use it for. But then you would think Krugman would use something other than Twitter to discuss and compare 9/11 with the impact of COVID-19.

The real issue I have with Krugman's Tweet is that he is revising history and bending over backwards to apologise for Dubya in a way to criticise Donald Trump's performance as President.

uncle tungsten , Sep 11 2020 22:13 utc | 50
b " Anyone with a functional memory knows that the U.S. reaction to 9/11 was anything but "pretty calm". It is ridiculous that Krugman is claiming that. "

Careful with that axe b, you are talking about Biden's chief economic adviser and likely appointee as Chair of the Fed. How does this look?
Volker
Greenspan
Bernanke
Yellen
Powell
Krugman

What could go wrong?

Prof K , Sep 11 2020 22:15 utc | 51
From 2019, Krugman de facto admits he was wrong his whole life. What a tool.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-10-10/inequality-globalization-and-the-missteps-of-1990s-economics

David G , Sep 11 2020 22:34 utc | 54

uncle tungsten | Sep 11 2020 22:13 utc | 50:

Reading Krugman's columns in 2016, I had a strong to overwhelming sense that this was a person revving up for a spot in Hillary's White House or cabinet. For some reason it isn't hitting me as strongly this time around – he may not have as close connections in Biden's circle – but it certainly would not be a surprise to see him take a turn through the media/government revolving door if Trump loses (though, fwiw, I don't think it will be a job at the Fed).

Et Tu , Sep 11 2020 22:48 utc | 55

Yep. Pretty staggering how a few disgruntled ex-CIA contractors managed to, deliberately or not, help the US Gov't launch the biggest world war operation right under the noses of the brainwashed masses.

99% of Westerners still are clueless as to explaining the last 20 years in a broader geopolitical context.

Russ , Sep 11 2020 22:48 utc | 56

Posted by: Caliman | Sep 11 2020 22:15 utc | 52

#28: "The antiwar protests in the US were small and insignificant."

No they were not. Millions of people demonstrated against the planned war, in the US, in the UK, and around the world...

We mustn't forget how the vast majority of those who allegedly were anti-war suddenly went totally pro-war silent upon Obama coming in.

But that pales compared to the vile spectacle of all the self-alleged "anti-authoritarians", "anti-propagandists" "dissidents", who suddenly regard the government media as the literal voice of God, where their alleged God speaks of Covid.

Prof K , Sep 11 2020 22:55 utc | 57

His book, End this Depression Now, is pretty weak. He has no theory of why the crash occurred. He critiques the austerity agenda but doesn't understand that government spending CAN create tax liabilities for capital down the road and eat into profits, thus blocking expanded investments and growth. Moronic libertarians hate Krugman just because they are right wing assholes who think, like fairies, that a free market without the state will work fine and self correct. Marx debunked this fairy tale thoroughly in Capital Volume 1, showing that, even if we start with the mythical free market of libertarian morons, capitalism will still operate according to the general law by which concentration and centralization lead to class polarization. In any case, in volume 3 of Capital, Marx develops his laws of crisis, showing that the cycles of expansion and depression under capitalism follow the movements of the rate of profit, which itself is determined by the ratio of the value of sunk capital in production technologies to the rate of exploitation (profits/wages). If the former rises more than the latter, the rate of profit sinks, along with investment, output and employment. Financial crises then set in.

The empirical evidence in the data bears out Marx's theory, not Krugman's dumb notion of aggregate demand, or the stupid libertarian focus on interest rates.

vk , Sep 12 2020 0:16 utc | 64

We could discuss here all day about the sociological subject of the American people's true positioning in the aftermath of 9/11. It would be, sincerely, a waste of time.

The important thing to grasp over this episode - from the point of view of History - is this: it was a strategic victory for al-Qaeda . The USA took the bait (all scripted?) and went into a quagmire in Iraq and Afghanistan. In a few years, the surplus the USA had accumulated with the sacking and absorption of the Soviet space during Bill Clinton evaporated and became a huge deficit in the Empire's accounts. Not long after, the 2008 financial meltdown happened, burying Bushism in a spectacular way.

There's a debate about the size of the hole the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan cost the American Empire. Some put it into the dozens of billions of USDs; others put it into the trillions of USDs range. We will never know. What we know is that the hole was big enough to both erase the American surplus and to not avoid the financial meltdown of 2008.

Either the expansion through the Middle East wasn't fast and provided riches enough to keep up with the Empire's voracious appetite or the invasion itself already represented a last, desperate attempt by the Empire to avoid its imminent collapse. We know, however, that POTUS Bush had a list of countries he wanted to invade beyond Iraq (the "Axis of Evil") which contained a secret country (Venezuela). He was conscious Iraq and Afghanistan wouldn't be enough. Whatever the case, he didn't have the time, and the financial meltdown happened in his last year in the White House.

uncle tungsten , Sep 12 2020 1:15 utc | 65

michaelj72 #38
karlof1 at #12

great stuff from M. Hudson, one of my favorite reads these days. Hudson has krugman's number. thanks again for those snippets and the links!

Steve Keen also has his number and Keen is pro capitalist

Krugman is a moron dressed as a weasel sounding like a squawking hen, with the vision of a hemorrhoid.

Antonym , Sep 12 2020 1:26 utc | 66

The main harsh reaction of G.W. Bush after 9/11 was the formation of DHS and laws to legalize mass national and international spying on anybody with electronic traffic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Homeland_Security#History

They knew who the perps of 9/11 were: their "own" Saudi irregulars in the CIA's US main land training camps, who started practicing on the "wrong"- domestic American- targets. These guys were officially entered without any background checks.
The Bush and Bin Laden families go way back in money making. That is why George had to ponder so long in that Florida kindergarten after hearing about the attacks: he had a suspicion. The Saudi only fly out after 9/11 confirms that.

Kay Fabr , Sep 12 2020 2:30 utc | 69

Paul Krugman Is a pro. Completely owned by Deep State. His purpose is to deflect discussion and prevent questioning the official version of 9/11 , and get people chasing something completely irrelevant. Well done Paul, most have taken the bait.

[Sep 12, 2020] Never Forget- Smoking Gun Intel Memo From 1990s Warned Of 'Frankenstein The CIA Created' - Zero Hedge

Sep 12, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

As Americans pause to remember the tragic events of September 11, 2001 which saw almost 3,000 innocents killed in the worst terror attack in United States history, it might also be worth contemplating the horrific wars and foreign quagmires unleashed during the subsequent 'war on terror'.

Bush's so-called Global War on Terror targeted 'rogue states' like Saddam's Iraq, but also consistently had a focus on uprooting and destroying al-Qaeda and other armed Islamist terror organizations (this led to the falsehood that Baathist Saddam and AQ were in cahoots). But the idea that Washington from the start saw al-Qaeda and its affiliates as some kind of eternal enemy is largely a myth.

Recall that the US covertly supported the Afghan mujahideen and other international jihadists throughout the 1980's Afghan-Soviet War, the very campaign in which hardened al-Qaeda terrorists got their start. In 1999 The Guardian in a rare moment of honest mainstream journalism warned of the Frankenstein the CIA created -- among their ranks a terror mastermind named Osama bin Laden .

1998 CNN still of Osama bin Laden, right, along with Egyptian jihadist Ayman al-Zawahiri in Afghanistan, CNN/Getty Images

But it was all the way back in 1993 that a then classified intelligence memo warned that the very fighters the CIA previously trained would soon turn their weapons on the US and its allies. The 'secret' document was declassified in 2009, but has remained largely obscure in mainstream media reporting, despite being the first to contain a bombshell admission.

A terrorism analyst at the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research named Gina Bennett wrote in the 1993 memo "The Wandering Mujahidin: Armed and Dangerous," that --

"support network that funneled money, supplies, and manpower to supplement the Afghan mujahidin" in the war against the Soviets, "is now contributing experienced fighters to militant Islamic groups worldwide."

UNCLASSIFIED

SECRET/NOFORWNOCONTRACT/ORCON

RELEASED IN FULL

United States Department of State
Bureau of Intelligence and Research

WEEKEND EDITION

21-22 August 1993

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE
REVIEW AUTHORITY: FRANK II PEREZ
DATEj'CASK ID: 23 NOV 2007 200605437

The Wandering Mujahidin: Armed and Dangerous

During the war in Afghanistan, eager Arab
youths volunteered en masse to fight a historic "jihad"
against the Soviet •'infidel." The support network
that funneled money, supplies, and manpower to sup-
plement the Afghan mujahidin is now contributing
experienced fighters to militant Islamic groups world-
wide. Veterans of the Afghan jihad are being inte-

... ... ...

dump hundreds more devout fighters into the net-
work. exacerbating the problems of governments that
are accepting the wandering mujahidin.

* * *

When the Boys Come Home

The concluding section contains the most revelatory statements, again remembering these words were written nearly a decade before the 9/11 attacks :

US support of the mujahidin during the Afghan war will not necessarily protect US interests from attack.

...Americans will become the targets of radical Muslims' wrath. Afghan war veterans, scattered throughout the world, could surprise the US with violence in unexpected locales.

https://lockerdome.com/lad/13084989113709670?pubid=ld-dfp-ad-13084989113709670-0&pubo=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com&rid=www.zerohedge.com&width=890

ue until wc throw India out," apparently is well armed
and operating about 80 miles southeast of Srinagar.

Mujahidin in Every Corner

Beyond the Middle East and South Asia, small
numbers of Afghan war veterans are taking up causes
from Somalia to the Philippines. Mujahidin connections
to the larger network heighten the chances that even
an ad hoc group could carry out destructive insurgent
attacks. Veterans joining small opposition groups can
contribute significantly to their capabilities; therefore,
some militant groups are actively recruiting returning
veterans, as in the Philippines where the radical Mus-
lim Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG) reportedly is using muja-
hidin members' connections to the network to bolster
funding and broker arms deals. The ASG is believed
to have carried out the May bombings of Manila's
light rail system.

Focus on the United States

The alleged involvement of veterans of the Af-
ghan war in the World Trade Center bombing and the
plots against New York targets arc a bold example of
what tactics some fop^r mujahidin are willing in use
in their ongoing jihad (see box, p. 3). US support of
the mujahidin during the Afghan war will not neces-
sarily protect US interests from attack.

The growing perception by Muslims that the US
follows a double standard with regard to Islamic issues --
particularly in Iraq, Bosnia, Algeria, and the Isracli-
occupicd territories -- heightens the possibility that
Americans will become the targets of radical Muslims'
wrath. Afghan war veterans, scattered throughout the
world, could surprise the US with violence in unex-
pected locales.

(Gina BennoB. INfVTNA)

There it is in black and white print: the United States government knew and bluntly acknowledged that the very militants it armed and trained to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars would eventually turn that very training and those very weapons back on the American people .

And this was not at all a "small" or insignificant group, instead as The Guardian wrote a mere two years before 9/11 :

American officials estimate that, from 1985 to 1992, 12,500 foreigners were trained in bomb-making, sabotage and urban guerrilla warfare in Afghan camps the CIA helped to set up .

But don't think for a moment that there was ever a "lesson learned" by Washington.

Frankenstein the CIA created

So he found a different theatre for his holy war and achieved a different sort
of martyrdom. Three years ago, he was convicted of planning a series of
massive explosions in Manhattan and sentenced to 35 years in prison.

Hampton-el was described by prosecutors as a skilled bomb-maker. It was
hardly surprising. In Afghanistan he fought with the Hezb-i-Islami group of
mujahideen, whose training and weaponry were mainly supplied by the CIA.

He was not alone. American officials estimate that, from 1985 to 1992,12,500

foreigners were trained in bomb-making, sabotage and urban guerrilla

warfare in Afghan camps the CIA helped to set up.

Instead the CIA and other US agencies repeated the 1980s policy of arming jihadists to overthrow US enemy regimes in places like Libya and Syria even long after the "lesson" of 9/11. As War on The Rocks recounted :

Despite the passage of time, the issues Ms. Bennett raised in her 1993 work continue to be relevant today. This fact is a sign of the persistence of the problem of Sunni jihadism and the "wandering mujahidin." Today, of course, the problem isn't Afghanistan but Syria. While the war there is far from over, there is already widespread nervousness, particularly in Europe, about what will happen when the foreign fighters return from that conflict.

https://platform.twitter.com/embed/index.html?dnt=false&embedId=twitter-widget-0&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1304385396692914177&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fgeopolitical%2Fnever-forget-1993-smoking-gun-intel-memo-warned-frankenstein-cia-created&siteScreenName=zerohedge&theme=light&widgetsVersion=219d021%3A1598982042171&width=550px NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST

ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX

Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.

On 9/11 we should never forget the innocent lives lost, but we should also never forget the Frankenstein of jihad the CIA created .

* * *

The U.S. State Dept.'s own numbers at the height of the war in Syria: access the full report at STATE.GOV

19 June 2015, From US Department of
State, Country Report on Terrorism 2014:
"The rate of foreign terrorist fighter travel to Syria
[during 2014]- totaling more than 16,000 foreign
terrorist ficjhters from more than 90 countries as
of late December - exceeded the rate of foreign
terrorist fighters who traveled to Afghanistan and
Pakistan, Iraq, Yemen, or Somalia at any point in
the last 20 years"

me name=

[Sep 11, 2020] Ignorance is strength: The 9-11 Official Story Retold in under 5 minutes

Compare with United Flight 93 National Memorial - YouTube
Sep 11, 2013 | www.youtube.com

Visit http://www.policestateusa.com


Joe 90 , 3 years ago

9/11 cost America over 3.3 trillion dollars & over 6 trillion dollars in two Middle East wars.

JF Byers , 6 years ago

This video was created by James Corbett of thecorbettreport (dotcom). He's the most prolific and talented alt news guy out there, in my opinion.

nvsyruable , 7 years ago

When I talk to people about that lack of closure for the victims of 911, I merely get a moment of silence and then I notice the deer in the headlights look. A few have said I'm crazy for questioning the official story, others say that nothing will ever change and the rest don't care enough to even think about it. Smh! Thanks to the minority who still want justice!

[Sep 11, 2020] 9-11 and the "New Normal"

Notable quotes:
"... This 9/11 I think the most important think is to recognise the continuum between that 'catalyzing event' and the one we are currently living through. Just as with Sep 11 2001, the covid19 "pandemic" is being used to initiate a massive paradigm shift in the public consciousness and to render 'normal' that which was unthinkable before this began. ..."
"... The problem is some of those who opposed the perpetual 'war on terror' paradigm ushered in by 9/11 are endorsing or accepting the 'new normal' paradigm, because they believe it is benign, essential and may even result in a better world of peace, love and happiness. ..."
"... I think they are horribly mistaken. I think if they want to know the type of world we are being prepped for they should read Huxley's BRAVE NEW WORLD. It's pretty much a blueprint – as has been all but spelled out for us by numerous authorities and opinion makers. ..."
Sep 11, 2020 | www.blacklistednews.com

SOURCE: OFF-GUARDIAN

This 9/11 I think the most important think is to recognise the continuum between that 'catalyzing event' and the one we are currently living through. Just as with Sep 11 2001, the covid19 "pandemic" is being used to initiate a massive paradigm shift in the public consciousness and to render 'normal' that which was unthinkable before this began.

The problem is some of those who opposed the perpetual 'war on terror' paradigm ushered in by 9/11 are endorsing or accepting the 'new normal' paradigm, because they believe it is benign, essential and may even result in a better world of peace, love and happiness.

I think they are horribly mistaken. I think if they want to know the type of world we are being prepped for they should read Huxley's BRAVE NEW WORLD. It's pretty much a blueprint – as has been all but spelled out for us by numerous authorities and opinion makers.

Peace? Maybe, though it's debatable. But it will be the 'peace' of enforced conformity.

Love? Ask the people of Melbourne about that one.

Happiness? Well, maybe if you take enough Soma (benzos, Ritalin, or whatever other substance you're prescribed to enhance your level of obedience unless they just add it to the water supply ).

And no, the masks and lockdowns will not go away because you accept them. You have been told that clearly by the govt you are believing and obeying.

You need to start listening to what they are actually saying.

And so with that we declare OffG's commemoration of the 19th anniversary of the "New Pearl Harbor" officially open .

[Mar 20, 2020] On 9/11, readers may enjoy

Mar 20, 2020 | www.unz.com

John Chuckman , says: Website Show Comment March 19, 2020 at 10:55 pm GMT

@anon8383892 On 9/11, readers may enjoy:

https://chuckmanwordsincomments.wordpress.com/2016/09/11/john-chuckman-comment-a-survivor-says-even-the-simplest-questions-around-911-have-not-been-answered-by-government-yes-and-some-disturbing-truths-around-those-events-the-saudi-arabian-nonsense/

Iris , says: Show Comment March 19, 2020 at 10:15 pm GMT
@Greg Bacon

The Israeli masterminded 9/11 false flag has been almost consecrated–like the holocaust–and anyone who dares to question the official lies, stands to lose their jobs, stature and be endlessly vilified for asking historical questions. Punitive measures that Mr. Barrett has first-hand knowledge of.

Good to remember that Dr Barrett is unambiguously proven to be right by the immutable laws of Physics and Engineering:

– A September 2019 University of Alaska PhD thesis, using state-of-the-art civil engineering design software, proved that WTC7 could have only been destroyed by controlled demolition.

– Due to the witnesses around, it would have been impossible to bring and install explosives into WTC7 during the time window after the collapse of the Twin Towers.

– Hence the explosives used to blow up WTC7 were already in place before the alleged WTC "plane attack" onto the Twin Towers took place.

– Hence the perpetrators are those who had control the WTC7 and were represented by Larry "Pull It" Silverstein.

[Jan 31, 2020] 9/11 as a massive Full-Scale Anti-Terrorist Exercise

Jan 31, 2020 | off-guardian.org

9/11, whatever it was, was an inside job

Petra Liverani

What 9/11 wasn't:
-- The work of 19 terrorists armed with boxcutters
What 9/11 was (in effect):
A massive Full-Scale Anti-Terrorist Exercise pushed out as real


George Mc ,

The 9/11 Commission Report is so obviously a crass fraud

Mike Ellwood ,

The 9/11 Commission Report is so obviously a crass fraud

Thus continuing in that fine tradition established by the Warren Commission Report of 1964.

WTC7 is, I believe, the key to it all, or much of it. Really establish the truth of what went on there, and much else may be revealed. ("And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse". Larry Silverstein )

It's the "dog that didn't bark in the night". It's Jack Ruby being able to walk into Dallas Police Headquarters and shoot Oswald at point blank range. It's the "three tramps". It's the fake Secret Service agents with authentic looking ID on the grassy knoll. And much else. All the things that just don't add up, and which make the official story look even shakier than it was to begin with.

paul ,

Very true. Most people soon accept 9/11 was a hoax when WTC7 is pointed out to them.

milosevic ,

assertions that the Deep State make their bullshit deliberately blatant because they are having a laugh at us all

An alternative hypothesis would be that it was produced by vulgar, stupid people, who assumed, rightly or wrongly, that the target audience was even more vulgar and stupid than themselves.

[Dec 29, 2019] Spray-on melto/bangstuff...neat-o when a State apparatus wishes to demolish tall buildings...

Dec 29, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org

Walter , Dec 28 2019 15:25 utc | 3

People who did not sleep through their chemistry classes (you did take chemistry, didn't you?) may enjoy reading "Energetic Nanocomposites with Sol-gel Chemistry: Synthesis, Safety,
and Characterization"
A.E. Gasht ,R.L. Simpson, and J.H. Satcher, Jr.
Energetic Materials Center
Lawrence LivermoreNational Laboratory

Spray-on melto/bangstuff...neat-o when a State apparatus wishes to demolish tall buildings...

[Dec 29, 2019] 'Silverstein walked out with close to $5bn in cash'

Dec 29, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com

Hammer of Light , 13 minutes ago link

DIVE IN = The water is deep, as is truth.

Larry Silverstein purportedly speaking in April 2000 about World Trade Center 7:

TRUMPS = DUAL CITIZEN GOY WONDERS ?

https://nationalvanguard.org/2018/07/they-rule-from-the-shadows-ira-and-ingeborg-rennert/

'Silverstein walked out with close to $5bn in cash'

"So Silverstein got his contract from the Port Authority. He bought the entire Trade Center on a 100-year lease. He only put down 15 million – with an m – millions of his own money, along with a hundred million of his partners' and for that he got the Trade Center for a hundred years," the commentator said.

"And had the Trade Center not been demolished, this would have been the worst real estate investment in history. But because Silverstein doubled the insurance money from what the Port Authority had held, and managed to get lucky on September 11, he walked out of this with close to $5 billion in cash," he pointed out.

"He had negotiated it with the insurance company to give him the cash settlement beforehand. And then he also claimed a double indemnity, that is he wanted to double the money because he said there were two separate and unrelated terrorist attacks, namely the two alleged airplanes," the researcher said.

"So he made a tremendous amount of money out of this. And the insurance company lost -- or some insurance companies lost. The question is which insurance companies lost billions of dollars to Larry Silverstein, Lewis Eisenberg and the deep state 9/11 insurance fraud crime, which of course was also done for geopolitical reasons," he observed.

"It's very interesting. I think the important thing that people need to know about this is why it's important, why there could be anything important in these insurance companies' documents," Dr. Barrett said.

"So we need to go back to 2001 when the World Trade Center complex and especially the two Towers were creating terrible problems for the Port Authority which is the city government agency that owned these buildings," he added.

" The Twin Towers were riddled with asbestos fireproofing , which was illegal, and they were under court order issued in January or early 2001 to remove the asbestos from the Towers. This would have cost billions, perhaps double-digit billions of dollars – economically a non-starter," he stated.

Larry Silverstein: WTC 7 "Pull It" from 2002 Interview

shhhhh... Larry PULLED the biggest INSURANCE SCAM MAYBE EVER?

...and it only cost 2,998 lives on 9/11, 7 Trillion in future generations debt spending now lost due to an endless war on terror that can never be won... AS INTENDED. Our soldiers and military were lied into mass murder... now presently over 22 Trillion in debt from the STOLEN American treasure chest as (22 TRILLION NatDebt) and the utter destruction of millions of lives murdered and families destroyed unaccountable.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7lSC3jXFDE

Puh Puh Puh Pullit Larry! The single greatest insurance fraudster maybe ever to boot Larry! Wow... what a title!

A real great guy? Ask Trump... he'll tell you all about his Zio-buddies he works for.. Sheldon.... Larry is one of them! Or... is this the case of keeping your friends close, and your enemies closer? I'm thinking "the CLOSER is in the WH has been keeping the real enemies VERY CLOSE". Let the chips fall where they may Mr. President. You know who did this, letem swing in the wind sir.

THE MISSING TRILLIONS?

"No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time." ~ Article I, Section 9, Clause 7, U.S. Constitution

$21 Trillion dollars is missing from the US government. That is $65,000 per person - as much as the national debt!

What's going on? Where is the money? How could this happen? How much has really gone missing? What would happen if a corporation failed to pass an audit like this? Or a taxpayer?

This means the Fed and their member banks are transacting government money outside the law. So are the corporate contractors that run the payment systems. So are the Wall Street firms who are selling government securities without full disclosure. Would your banks continue to handle your bank account if you behaved like this? Would your investors continue to buy your securities if you behaved like this? Would your accountant be silent?

This is the reason that there is such a strong push to change or tear up the US Constitution. This is why members of the establishment say it is "old," "outdated!" This is why there is such a push for gun control. Don't buy it! We can use the Constitution to get our money and our government back. It is time to enforce the US Constitution.

The Solari Report has been covering the missing money since 2000 when Catherine Austin Fitts began to warn Americans and global investors about mortgage fraud at the US Department of Housing and Development (HUD), the engineering of the housing bubble that lead to trillions more dollars in bailouts and funds missing from the US government starting in fiscal 1998.

https://missingmoney.solari.com/

https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2018/11/02/pentagon-cant-account-for-21-trillion-thats-not-typo/

https://home.solari.com/the-federal-government-cant-account-for-21-trillion-does-anybody-care/

~ IT'S TIME TO BRING THOSE RESPONSIBLE TO JUSTICE AND PREVENT THE NEXT ATTACK ~

FOLLOW THE MONEY!

9/11 was a Joint Israel/US/UK/House of Saud nuclear and conventional event. Again How do granite foundations liquify and pool?

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/1998-11-01/catastrophic-terrorism-tackling-new-danger

The mystery plane that everyone witnessed hovering at high altitude over WTC/NYC was this plane. We were able to verify that this was no question the operational command post used to direct the 9/11 Operation day of.

The Boeing E-4 Advanced Airborne Command Post, with the project name "Nightwatch", is a strategic command and control military aircraft modified from Boeing 747-200 and operated by the United States Air Force. The E-4B serves as the "National Airborne Operations Center" or "NAOC" and is a key component of the National Military Command System for the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In case of national emergency or destruction of ground command and control centers, the aircraft provides a highly survivable command, control, and communications center to direct U.S. forces, execute emergency war orders, and coordinate actions by civil authorities.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_E-4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7UHjIjNswo&ytbChannel=AiirSource%20Military - take a tour, see for yourselves this is a real E4B... starting to add up people?

As for the aircraft wreckage in Shanksville and the Pentagon, the simple answer is that there was no plane crash in either location. All 100% manufactured.

THIS IS YOUR PENTAGON AIRCRAFT = AGM-86B Cruise Missile

https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/missile-cruise-air-launched-agm-86b

I've seen actual stills of the Pentagon under 2 minutes after the impact of the cruise missile attack. The Pentagon Staff was immediately disbursed from the DOD PR/Press core who were dragging all sorts of debris out on to the lawn in order to stage the event. Photo-ops!

What was the target of the Pentagon and who were the people to be disposed of? Why naturally those who were on to the missing, stolen, THEN 2.5 Trillion Rumsfeld alerted everyone to the day before on September 10th. 2001.

Office of Naval Intelligence

(ONI) Pentagon -DIRECT HIT and the office STAFF and the bean counters that were all murdered that day of whom were directly targeted on 9/11 for uncovering the goings on within the PNAC crowd, Bushes, Israel... they had it nailed.

The facts that many of you know of Israel's direct involvement of 9/11 and the operation which also included the accounting aspects of the missing money that the ONI had uncovered were all part of the disposal of those who were fighting the deep state even then.

REMEMBER PEOPLE - FOLLOW THE MONEY FOLLOW THE MONEY FOLLOW THE MONEY - Simple as that.

[Sep 22, 2019] More Americans Questioning Official 9-11 Story As New Evidence Contradicts Official Narrative by Whitney Webb

Highly recommended!
If commissioners for a New York-area Fire Department, which responded to the attacks called for a new investigation into the events of September 11 then official story is officially dead.
Notable quotes:
"... Evidence continues to mount that the official narrative itself is the irrational narrative of September 11, and it becomes ever more clear that the media remains committed to preventing legitimate questions about that day from receiving the scrutiny they deserve. ..."
"... For instance, in late July, commissioners for a New York-area Fire Department, which responded to the attacks and lost one of their own that day, called for a new investigation into the events of September 11. On July 24, the board of commissioners for the Franklin Square and Munson Fire District, which serves a population of around 30,000 near Queens, voted unanimously in their call for a new investigation into the attacks. ..."
"... Commissioner Christopher Gioia, who drafted and introduced the resolution, told those present at the meeting's conclusion that getting all of the New York fire districts onboard was their plan anyway. ..."
"... "We're a tight-knit community and we never forget our fallen brothers and sisters. You better believe that when the entire fire service of New York State is on board, we will be an unstoppable force," Gioia said. "We were the first fire district to pass this resolution. We won't be the last," he added. ..."
"... While questioning the official conclusions of the first federal investigation into 9/11 has been treated as taboo in the American media landscape for years, it is worth noting that even those who led the commission have said that the investigation was "set up to fail" from the start and that they were repeatedly misled and lied to by federal officials in relation to the events of that day. ..."
"... For instance, the chair and vice-chair of the 9/11 Commission, Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, wrote in their book Without Precedent that not only was the commission starved of funds and its powers of investigation oddly limited, but that they were obstructed and outright lied to by top Pentagon officials and officials with the Federal Aviation Authority (FAA). ..."
"... Though the official story regarding the collapse of WTC 7 cites "uncontrolled building fires" as leading to the building's destruction, a majority of Americans who have seen the footage of the 47-story tower come down from four different angles overwhelmingly reject the official story, based on a new YouGov poll released on Monday. ..."
"... That poll found that 52 percent of those who saw the footage were either sure or suspected that the building's fall was due to explosives and was a controlled demolition, with 27 percent saying they didn't know what to make of the footage. Only 21 percent of those polled agreed with the official story that the building collapsed due to fires alone. Prior to seeing the footage, 36 percent of respondents said that they were unaware that a third building collapsed on September 11 and more than 67 percent were unable to name the building that had collapsed. ..."
"... Ted Walter, Director of Strategy and Development for Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, told MintPress that the lack of awareness about WTC 7 among the general public "goes to show that the mainstream media has completely failed to inform the American people about even the most basic facts related to 9/11. On any other day in history, if a 47-story skyscraper fell into its footprint due to 'office fires,' everyone in the country would have heard about it." ..."
"... The Americans who felt that the video footage of WTC 7's collapse did not fit with the official narrative and appeared to show a controlled demolition now have more scientific evidence to fall back on after the release of a new university study found that the building came down not due to fire but from "the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building." The extensive four-year study was conducted by the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the University of Alaska and used complex computer models to determine if the building really was the first steel-framed high-rise ever to have collapsed solely due to office fires. ..."
"... The only reason it remains taboo to ask questions about the official narrative, whose own authors admit that it is both flawed and incomplete, is that the dominant forces in the American media and the U.S. government have successfully convinced many Americans that doing so is not only dangerous but irrational and un-American. ..."
Sep 22, 2019 | www.unz.com

Evidence continues to mount that the official narrative itself is the irrational narrative of September 11, and it becomes ever more clear that the media remains committed to preventing legitimate questions about that day from receiving the scrutiny they deserve.

Today the event that defined the United States' foreign policy in the 21st century, and heralded the destruction of whole countries, turns 18. The events of September 11, 2001 remains etched into the memories of Americans and many others, as a collective tragedy that brought Americans together and brought as well a general resolve among them that those responsible be brought to justice.

While the events of that day did unite Americans in these ways for a time, the different trajectories of the official relative to the independent investigations into the September 11 attacks have often led to division in the years since 2001, with vicious attacks or outright dismissal being levied against the latter.

Yet, with 18 years having come and gone -- and with the tireless efforts from victims' families, first responders, scientists and engineers -- the tide appears to be turning, as new evidence continues to emerge and calls for new investigations are made. However, American corporate media has remained largely silent, preferring to ignore new developments that could derail the "official story" of one of the most iconic and devastating attacks to ever occur on American soil.

For instance, in late July, commissioners for a New York-area Fire Department, which responded to the attacks and lost one of their own that day, called for a new investigation into the events of September 11. On July 24, the board of commissioners for the Franklin Square and Munson Fire District, which serves a population of around 30,000 near Queens, voted unanimously in their call for a new investigation into the attacks.

While the call for a new investigation from a NY Fire Department involved in the rescue effort would normally seem newsworthy to the media outlets who often rally Americans to "never forget," the commissioners' call for a new investigation was met with total silence from the mainstream media. The likely reason for the dearth of coverage on an otherwise newsworthy vote was likely due to the fact that the resolution that called for the new investigation contained the following clause:

Whereas, the overwhelming evidence presented in said petition demonstrates beyond any doubt that pre-planted explosives and/or incendiaries -- not just airplanes and the ensuing fires -- caused the destruction of the three World Trade Center buildings, killing the vast majority of the victims who perished that day;"

In the post-9/11 world, those who have made such claims, no matter how well-grounded their claims may be, have often been derided and attacked as "conspiracy theorists" for questioning the official claims that the three World Trade Center buildings that collapsed on September 11 did so for any reason other than being struck by planes and from the resulting fires. Yet, it is much more difficult to launch these same attacks against members of a fire department that lost a fireman on September 11 and many of whose members were involved with the rescue efforts of that day, some of whom still suffer from chronic illnesses as a result.

Rescue workers climb on piles of rubble at the World Trade Center in New York, Sept. 13, 2001. Beth A. Keiser | AP

Another likely reason that the media monolithically avoided coverage of the vote was out of concern that it would lead more fire departments to pass similar resolutions, which would make it more difficult for such news to avoid gaining national coverage. Yet, Commissioner Christopher Gioia, who drafted and introduced the resolution, told those present at the meeting's conclusion that getting all of the New York fire districts onboard was their plan anyway.

"We're a tight-knit community and we never forget our fallen brothers and sisters. You better believe that when the entire fire service of New York State is on board, we will be an unstoppable force," Gioia said. "We were the first fire district to pass this resolution. We won't be the last," he added.

While questioning the official conclusions of the first federal investigation into 9/11 has been treated as taboo in the American media landscape for years, it is worth noting that even those who led the commission have said that the investigation was "set up to fail" from the start and that they were repeatedly misled and lied to by federal officials in relation to the events of that day.

For instance, the chair and vice-chair of the 9/11 Commission, Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, wrote in their book Without Precedent that not only was the commission starved of funds and its powers of investigation oddly limited, but that they were obstructed and outright lied to by top Pentagon officials and officials with the Federal Aviation Authority (FAA). They and other commissioners have outright said that the "official" report on the attacks is incomplete, flawed and unable to answer key questions about the terror attacks.

Despite the failure of American corporate media to report these facts, local legislative bodies in New York, beginning with the fire districts that lost loved ones and friends that day, are leading the way in the search for real answers that even those that wrote the "official story" say were deliberately kept from them.

Persuasive scientific evidence continues to roll in

Not long after the Franklin Square and Munson Fire District called for a new 9/11 investigation, a groundbreaking university study added even more weight to the commissioners' call for a new look at the evidence regarding the collapse of three buildings at the World Trade Center complex. While most Americans know full well that the twin towers collapsed on September 11, fewer are aware that a third building -- World Trade Center Building 7 -- also collapsed. That collapse occurred seven hours after the twin towers came down, even though WTC 7, or "Building 7," was never struck by a plane.

It was not until nearly two months after its collapse that reports revealed that the CIA had a "secret office" in WTC 7 and that, after the building's destruction, "a special CIA team scoured the rubble in search of secret documents and intelligence reports stored in the station, either on paper or in computers." WTC 7 also housed offices for the Department of Defense, the Secret Service, the New York Mayor's Office of Emergency Management and the bank Salomon Brothers.

Though the official story regarding the collapse of WTC 7 cites "uncontrolled building fires" as leading to the building's destruction, a majority of Americans who have seen the footage of the 47-story tower come down from four different angles overwhelmingly reject the official story, based on a new YouGov poll released on Monday.

Source | Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

That poll found that 52 percent of those who saw the footage were either sure or suspected that the building's fall was due to explosives and was a controlled demolition, with 27 percent saying they didn't know what to make of the footage. Only 21 percent of those polled agreed with the official story that the building collapsed due to fires alone. Prior to seeing the footage, 36 percent of respondents said that they were unaware that a third building collapsed on September 11 and more than 67 percent were unable to name the building that had collapsed.

Ted Walter, Director of Strategy and Development for Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, told MintPress that the lack of awareness about WTC 7 among the general public "goes to show that the mainstream media has completely failed to inform the American people about even the most basic facts related to 9/11. On any other day in history, if a 47-story skyscraper fell into its footprint due to 'office fires,' everyone in the country would have heard about it."

The fact that the media chose not to cover this, Walter asserted, shows that "the mainstream media and the political establishment live in an alternative universe and the rest of the American public is living in a different universe and responding to what they see in front of them," as reflected by the results of the recent YouGov poll.

Another significant finding of the YouGov poll was that 48 percent of respondents supported, while only 15 percent opposed, a new investigation into the events of September 11. This shows that not only was the Franklin Square Fire District's recent call for a new investigation in line with American public opinion, but that viewing the footage of WTC 7's collapse raises more questions than answers for many Americans, questions that were not adequately addressed by the official investigation of the 9/11 Commission.

The Americans who felt that the video footage of WTC 7's collapse did not fit with the official narrative and appeared to show a controlled demolition now have more scientific evidence to fall back on after the release of a new university study found that the building came down not due to fire but from "the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building." The extensive four-year study was conducted by the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the University of Alaska and used complex computer models to determine if the building really was the first steel-framed high-rise ever to have collapsed solely due to office fires.

The study, currently available as a draft , concluded that "uncontrolled building fires" did not lead the building to fall into its footprint -- tumbling more than 100 feet at the rate of gravity free-fall for 2.5 seconds of its seven-second collapse -- as has officially been claimed. Instead, the study -- authored by Dr. J. Leroy Hulsey, Dr. Feng Xiao and Dr. Zhili Quan -- found that "fire did not cause the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11, contrary to the conclusions of NIST [National Institute of Standards and Technology] and private engineering firms that studied the collapse," while also concluding "that the collapse of WTC 7 was a global [i.e., comprehensive] failure involving the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building."

This "near-simultaneous failure of every column" in WTC 7 strongly suggests that explosives were involved in its collapse, which is further supported by the statements made by Barry Jennings, the then-Deputy Director of Emergency Services Department for the New York City Housing Authority. Jennings told a reporter the day of the attack that he and Michael Hess, then-Corporation Counsel for New York City, had heard and seen explosions in WTC 7 several hours prior to its collapse and later repeated those claims to filmmaker Dylan Avery. The first responders who helped rescue Jennings and Hess also claimed to have heard explosions in WTC 7. Jennings died in 2008, two days prior the release of the official NIST report blaming WTC 7's collapse on fires. To date, no official cause of death for Jennings has been given.

Still "crazy" after all these years?

Eighteen years after the September 11 attacks, questioning the official government narrative of the events of those days still remains taboo for many, as merely asking questions or calling for a new investigation into one of the most important events in recent American history frequently results in derision and dismissal.

Yet, this 9/11 anniversary -- with a new study demolishing the official narrative on WTC 7, with a new poll showing that more than half of Americans doubt the government narrative on WTC 7, and with firefighters who responded to 9/11 calling for a new investigation -- is it still "crazy" to be skeptical of the official story?

Firefighters hose down the smoldering remains of 7 World Trade Center Tuesday, Sept. 18, 2001, in New York. Ryan Remiorz | AP

Even in years past, when asking difficult questions about September 11 was even more "off limits," it was often first responders, survivors and victims' families who had asked the most questions about what had really transpired that day and who have led the search for truth for nearly two decades -- not wild-eyed "conspiracy theorists," as many have claimed.

The only reason it remains taboo to ask questions about the official narrative, whose own authors admit that it is both flawed and incomplete, is that the dominant forces in the American media and the U.S. government have successfully convinced many Americans that doing so is not only dangerous but irrational and un-American.

However, as evidence continues to mount that the official narrative itself is the irrational narrative, it becomes ever more clear that the reason for this media campaign is to prevent legitimate questions about that day from receiving the scrutiny they deserve, even smearing victims' families and ailing first responders to do so. For too long, "Never Forget" has been nearly synonymous with "Never Question."

Yet, failing to ask those questions -- even when more Americans than ever now favor a new investigation and discount the official explanation for WTC 7's collapse -- is the ultimate injustice, not only to those who died in New York City on September 11, but those who have been killed in their names in the years that have followed.

Whitney Webb is a MintPress News journalist based in Chile. She has contributed to several independent media outlets including Global Research, EcoWatch, the Ron Paul Institute and 21st Century Wire, among others. She has made several radio and television appearances and is the 2019 winner of the Serena Shim Award for Uncompromised Integrity in Journalism.


tanabear , says: September 11, 2019 at 7:45 pm GMT

Leroy Hulsey et al. of the University of Alaska Fairbanks released their draft report on WTC7 on September 3rd. These are the major findings and conclusions:

" The principal conclusion of our study is that fire did not cause the collapse of WTC 7 on
9/11, contrary to the conclusions of NIST and private engineering firms that studied the collapse. The secondary conclusion of our study is that the collapse of WTC 7 was a global failure involving the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building.

This conclusion is based primarily upon the finding that the simultaneous failure of all
core columns over 8 stories followed 1.3 seconds later by the simultaneous failure of all exterior columns over 8 stories produces almost exactly the behavior observed in videos of the collapse, whereas no other sequence of failures that we simulated produced the observed behavior."

So World Trade Tower 7 was an engineered demolition. This is something that the 9/11 "conspiracy theorists" believed all along. Now a major engineering study confirms it.

Osama Bin SEE I A , says: September 12, 2019 at 1:12 am GMT
...The infuriating thing about 9/11 and the multitude of lesser false flags which both preceded and followed it is that, although most Americans know it was as phoney as a three and a half dollar fed reserve note, everyone seems content to put up with the extremely phoney "war on terror" it was designed to create and which has already destroyed a hand full of countries in the world, caused the murder of upwards of two million people, mostly using U.S. military, and turned the U.S. into a ruthlessly insane police state wherein everyone is made to obey patently unlawful statutes in the name of "emergency" while the ruling elite has quit obeying any laws at all while gathering a massive military presence to cow the now restless and resentful public. – See more at:Christopher Bollyn: The Man Who Solved 9/11

https://www.youtube.com/embed/pLWIV0TTcbI?feature=oembed

davidgmillsatty , says: September 12, 2019 at 6:58 pm GMT
@The Alarmist An aerospace engineer. Good for you. Maybe you need a refresher course with some architects and building engineers. Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth is a good place to start.

As for steel losing 90% of its strength at half its melting temperature -- that does not imply that heat not will stack on steel. The whole building was a steel radiator. And the fires in building 7 were very small so just how do small fires get to half the melting temperature of steel when the radiator effect is bleeding what little heat these fires have from a certain spot.

Lets see the steel buildings you claim were demolished by fires, because I have heard many architects and engineers say the number is zero. We are talking a total collapse of the buildings not just a partial collapse. Let's see them.

Adam Smith , says: September 19, 2019 at 3:56 am GMT

Eighteen years after the September 11 attacks, questioning the official government narrative of the events of those days still remains taboo for many

This topic illustrates a few things about humans and their societies that many of us do not realize, or are too afraid to realize. It's bigger than just the cognitive dissonance, though this is part of it. Admittedly it is uncomfortable for most people to think about such things Ignorance is bliss, and it is much easier to follow the herd.

But

Humans have been selectively bred and conditioned for obedience to authority for at least the last 10,000 years. Stanley Milgram made the ramifications of this clear when he showed us some of the dangers this fact presents for our world. Couple Milgram's findings with those of Solomon Asch's conformity experiments and it starts becoming clear why a large part, about 30%, of the population will never be able to question the official orthodoxy regarding this "New Pearl Harbor".

Many people simply do not have the mental ability to question those in a perceived position of authority. These people are used to following orders. They are trained very well. These are the people who will electrocute a stranger just because a man in a white coat says to. These are the people who will throw a grenade into your babies crib while storming your home in the middle of the night because some junkie informant told them they bought drugs there in exchange for cash or a lighter sentence. These are the people who will not believe their lying eyes when it contradicts the words of their masters or if it risks going against the apparent consensus of a group of strangers.

I call them authoritarian followers. They love punishing members of the outgroup. They love following rules no matter how arbitrary, nonsensical or detrimental. They expect others to follow too.

We all know September 11, 2001, was an inside/outside job. Cui bono? The axis of kindness. The U.S./Nato, Saudi Arabia and Israel committed the events of September 11, 2001 so they could escalate their wars in the middle east to redraw the map for Greater Israel while securing the oil in the middle east and the trillions in minerals in Afghanistan. The military industrial complex needs endless wars to justify their one trillion plus dollar annual budget and all the power that comes with it. Some people, like lucky Larry Silverstein, made billions off the transaction. There is plenty of profiteering and graft that comes with waging forever war.

The same people who profited from the event are the same people who planned and executed the event. They are also the people who had the tools to make it happen. Fortunately for the criminals who committed the crimes of that day a large part of the population will line up to ridicule anyone who has the audacity to question the official narrative.

So buy police brutality bonds and pay your victory tax. Your work will set you free.

Anonymous [973] • Disclaimer , says: September 19, 2019 at 11:24 pm GMT
@Adam Smith It's so unbelievably rare to run into a sincere description of the average fellow. Because one cam't lie to himself about the others less than he does about himself (he can't know the others more than he can know himself), so usually evident features of people (thus of mainstream culture, history, journalistic narratives, ) must he denied because evident features of the self must be denied.

It's co-operation.

And then, aren't they a social species? You have surely observed that a group of them functions in ways very close to the ant colony, the bee hive, and so on. So many more billion neurons but what rules the mind is still so close to what rules it in the other social species.

The thing to consider is that for God knows how many thousands of years in mankind's history, whenever two differently sized came to a confrontation, belonging in the largest equated survival, in the smallest death.
Then there is the intragroup confrontations and dangers: here flattering the pack leaders best equated to better chances of survival + a more comfortable life. On the other hand, injuring their sense of power had the same outcome that it has for the ordinary bee or ant to do the same to the colony's or hive's leader.

This has embedded a couple of instincts, which truth and fairness can't be where they are, at the deepest level of the regular human mind.
Some minds are different, but they don't matter, first of all they don't matter numerically.

So official accounts of historic events are no more and no less truth-free of the accounts people make-up of their own lives' essential events.
If you assess the average divorce-asking woman's narrative on her marriage and why she wants to break it up and the average account of, say, World War 2 in the average school book, the % of untruth will be circa the same.

What happens at the higher levels follows from the nature of the majority.

Anonymous [973] • Disclaimer , says: September 19, 2019 at 11:32 pm GMT
@Adam Smith

They love following rules no matter how arbitrary, nonsensical or detrimental. They expect others to follow too.

Following rules as long as nobody above them tells them to make an exception.
They expect not all others, but only those below them in the power pole, to follow rules.
If they see/realize/know someone above them has broken a rule, they are awesomely good at, wbile they have seen/realized/learned the fact, not having seen/realized/learned it.

This kind of mind can't afford unity and individuality, of course. There are always inconsistencies, and even contradictory things believed at the same time.
And boy, how do the other authorities/authoritarian followers (depending whom they are dealingwith) who make up the psych professions praise that kind of person! How do they master selective blindness/forgetfulness/ignorance.

Paul Vonharnish , says: • Website September 20, 2019 at 3:45 pm GMT
It's obvious from most reader comments that the educational systems in America (and elsewhere) have completely decayed. "Cognitive dissonance" is just another cowardly way of accepting lies as truths Most of you are lying to yourselves and expecting others to buy into hype and bullshit.

Anyone who's worked with cutting steel plate knows that 5 inch thick steel plating (as used in most lower columns of the towers) requires a perfect mixture of acetylene and oxygen just to get the cutting area hot enough to apply the oxygen burst that cuts along the line. Any cooling of the plate and it's no cigar. There is no way air craft fuel (kerosene) and normal building materials can get anywhere near the melting point of steel, much less cause complete structural failure of a perfectly engineered steel beamed structure.

Christopher Bollyn and many other dedicated journalists have connected all the relevant dots, yet the unwashed continue to hide behind their collage degrees and talk complete nonsense.

The first and second laws of thermodynamics should be mastered before graduating from eighth grade People need to quit lying about the efficacy of truth

D-FENS , says: September 21, 2019 at 7:09 pm GMT
I am an agnostic on whether the twin towers were brought down by supplemental explosives. My question is, what is gained by actually bringing the buildings down? If the attacks were to serve as a pretext for war in the middle east, wouldn't the acts of hijacking the planes and crashing them have been sufficient without the risks involved in planting explosives and being being detected?

The only reasons I can offer are financial, such as the insurance payments, voided contracts, shorting stocks etc. and perhaps destruction of evidence in criminal or civil cases.

What is interesting is the 9/11 Commission's conclusion regarding the financing of 9/11: " the U.S. government has not been able to determine the origin of the money used for the 9/11 attacks. Ultimately the question is of little practical significance."

Then why do we have all the financial transaction laws?

[Sep 22, 2019] 9-11 You Weren t Stupid, Mr. Brown!

Notable quotes:
"... Shortly after 9:59 a.m. Brown had been standing on a roof in New York City about 30 blocks from the World Trade Center. He was looking directly at the South Tower as it was destroyed. He was not just a journalist and not just a news anchor: he was an eyewitness. ..."
"... He immediately interrupted a journalist who was reporting live about the Pentagon: ..."
"... Wow! Jamie. Jamie, I need you to stop for a second. There has just been a huge explosion we can see a billowing smoke rising and I can't I'll tell you that I can't see that second Tower. But there was a cascade of sparks and fire and now this it looks almost like a mushroom cloud, explosion, this huge, billowing smoke in the second Tower " (9:59:07 a.m.) ..."
"... Brown: Was there Brian, did it sound like there was an explosion before the second collapse, or was the noise the collapse itself?" (10:41:08 a.m.) ..."
"... Palmer: "Well, from our distance I was not able to distinguish between an explosion and the collapse. We were several hundred yards away. But we clearly saw the building come down. I heard your report of a fourth explosion: I can't confirm that. But we heard some "boom" and then the building fold in on itself." ..."
"... Rose Arce: I'm about a block away. And there were several people that were hanging out the windows right below where the plane crashed, when suddenly you saw the top of the building start to shake, and people began leaping from the windows in the north side of the building. You saw two people at first plummet and then a third one, and then the entire top of the building just blew up ..."
"... Patty: About an hour ago I was on the corner of Broadway and Park Place -- that's about a thousand yards from the World Trade Center -- when the first Tower collapsed. It was a massive explosion. At the time the police were trying desperately to evacuate people from the area. When that explosion occurred it was like a scene out of a horror film. ..."
"... After checking with his reporters, Brown continued to explore his hypotheses, this time by consulting authorities. This was where he was led astray. "Authorities" are less securely tied to evidence than witnesses and may, in fact, be implicated in high level deception. ..."
"... Brown: Sir, do you believe that was there another set of explosions that caused the buildings to collapse, or was it the structural damage caused by the planes?" ( 12:31:45 p.m. ) ..."
"... Later in the afternoon Giuliani got his script right and was more definite in ruling out explosions. But, of course, Giuliani had no right to pronounce on the science of building destruction. Brown should have persisted in his questioning. ..."
Sep 11, 2019 | off-guardian.org
9

9/11: You Weren't Stupid, Mr. Brown! CNN's brief shining moment on September 11, 2001 Graeme MacQueen

Graeme MacQueen

Aaron Brown, news anchor during most of CNN's coverage on September 11, 2001, was interviewed on the 15th anniversary of the event. He said in that interview that he had felt "profoundly stupid" when he was reporting the destruction of the first Tower (the South Tower) on that morning.

I I will tell you that a million things had been running through my mind about what might happen. About the effect of a jet plane hitting people above where the impact was, what might be going on in those buildings. And it just never occurred to me that they'd come down. And I thought it's the only time I thought, maybe you just don't have what it takes to do a story like this. Because it just had never occurred to me." (CNN, Sept. 11, 2016, interviewer Brian Stelter)

Is it not remarkable that Brown was made to feel stupid, and to feel inadequate as a news anchor, during the precise moments of his coverage of that day when his senses and his mind were fully engaged and on the right track?

Shortly after 9:59 a.m. Brown had been standing on a roof in New York City about 30 blocks from the World Trade Center. He was looking directly at the South Tower as it was destroyed. He was not just a journalist and not just a news anchor: he was an eyewitness.

He immediately interrupted a journalist who was reporting live about the Pentagon:

Wow! Jamie. Jamie, I need you to stop for a second. There has just been a huge explosion we can see a billowing smoke rising and I can't I'll tell you that I can't see that second Tower. But there was a cascade of sparks and fire and now this it looks almost like a mushroom cloud, explosion, this huge, billowing smoke in the second Tower " (9:59:07 a.m.)

Having reported honestly what he saw with his own eyes, Brown next did exactly what he should have done as a responsible news anchor. He let his audience know that while he did not know what had happened it was clear that there were two hypotheses in play, the explosion hypothesis and the structural failure hypothesis. And then he went to his reporters on the scene, as well as to authorities, to try and sort out which hypothesis was correct.

Here are examples of his setting forth -- after the first building was destroyed and again after the second was destroyed -- the rival hypotheses:

and then just in the last several minutes there has been a second explosion or, at least, perhaps not an explosion, perhaps part of the building simply collapsed. And that's what we saw and that's what we're looking at." ( 10:03:47 )

This is just a few minutes ago we don't know if something happened, another explosion, or if the building was so weakened it just collapsed." ( 10:04:36 a.m. )

we believe now that we can say that both, that portions of both Towers of the World Trade Centre, have collapsed. Whether there were second explosions, that is to say, explosions other than the planes hitting them, that caused this to happen we cannot tell you." ( 10:29:21 a.m. )

Our reporters in the area say they heard loud noises when that happened. It is unclear to them and to us whether those were explosions going on in the building or if that was simply the sound of the collapse of the buildings as they collapsed, making these huge noises as they came down." ( 11:17:45 a.m .)

Brown's honest reporting of his perceptions was balanced repeatedly by his caution. Here is an example:

it almost looks it almost looks like one of those implosions of buildings that you see except there is nothing controlled about this this is devastation." ( 10:53:10 a.m. )

His next move, having set forth the two hypotheses, was to ask his reporters on the scene, who were choking on pulverized debris and witnessing gruesome scenes, what they perceived.

Reporter Brian Palmer said honestly that he was not in a position to resolve the issue.

Brown: Was there Brian, did it sound like there was an explosion before the second collapse, or was the noise the collapse itself?" (10:41:08 a.m.)

Palmer: "Well, from our distance I was not able to distinguish between an explosion and the collapse. We were several hundred yards away. But we clearly saw the building come down. I heard your report of a fourth explosion: I can't confirm that. But we heard some "boom" and then the building fold in on itself."

Two others were more definite about what they perceived.

Brown: Rose, whadya got? ( 10:29:43 a.m. )

Rose Arce: I'm about a block away. And there were several people that were hanging out the windows right below where the plane crashed, when suddenly you saw the top of the building start to shake, and people began leaping from the windows in the north side of the building. You saw two people at first plummet and then a third one, and then the entire top of the building just blew up

Brown: Who do we have on the phone, guys? Just help me out here. Patty, are you there? ( 10:57:51 a.m. )

Patty: Yes, I am here.

Brown: Whaddya got?

Patty: About an hour ago I was on the corner of Broadway and Park Place -- that's about a thousand yards from the World Trade Center -- when the first Tower collapsed. It was a massive explosion. At the time the police were trying desperately to evacuate people from the area. When that explosion occurred it was like a scene out of a horror film.

As can be seen, the explosion hypothesis was flourishing. Even the news caption at the bottom of the screen shortly after the destruction of the South Tower ( 10:03:12 a.m. ) is striking to read today:

"THIRD EXPLOSION SHATTERS WORLD TRADE CENTER IN NEW YORK"

After checking with his reporters, Brown continued to explore his hypotheses, this time by consulting authorities. This was where he was led astray. "Authorities" are less securely tied to evidence than witnesses and may, in fact, be implicated in high level deception.

First Brown consulted a political authority. He got the Mayor of New York City on the line.

Brown: Sir, do you believe that was there another set of explosions that caused the buildings to collapse, or was it the structural damage caused by the planes?" ( 12:31:45 p.m. )

Giuliani: I don't, I don't know, I, uh, I, uh I, I saw the first collapse and heard the second 'cause I was in a building when the second took place. I think it was structural but I cannot be sure."

Later in the afternoon Giuliani got his script right and was more definite in ruling out explosions. But, of course, Giuliani had no right to pronounce on the science of building destruction. Brown should have persisted in his questioning.

Finally, Brown brought in an engineer, Jim DeStefano–associated, we were told, with the National Council of Structural Engineers. DeStefano's brief comments put an end to Brown's explosion hypothesis and rendered CNN's news coverage safe for public consumption.

Brown: Jim De Stefano is a structural engineer. He knows about big buildings and what happens in these sort of catastrophic moments. He joins us from Deerfield, Connecticut on the phone. Jim, the plane hits what and I hope this isn't a terribly oversimplified question, but what happens to the building itself? ( 04:20:45 p.m. )

DeStefano: It's a tremendous impact that's applied to the building when a collision like this occurs. And it's clear that that impact was sufficient to do damage to the columns and the bracing system supporting the building. That coupled with the fire raging and the high temperatures softening the structural steel then precipitated a destabilization of the columns and clearly the columns buckled at the lower floors causing the building to collapse.

I am not in a position to call DeStefano a fake or to claim he was reading from a script given to him by others, but I am prepared to say he was extremely irresponsible. He did not say "here is one hypothesis." He said, in effect, "this is what happened." He was in no position to make this claim. There had been no photographic or video analysis of the building destruction, no analysis of the remains of the WTC, no cataloguing of eyewitnesses, nor any of the other methods of evidence gathering. He was shooting in the dark. He was silencing a journalist who was sincerely trying to discover the truth. As we have known for years now, DeStefano not only could have been wrong : he was wrong.*

And let us remember that the entire War on Terror, with its suffering and oppression, has depended on this false structural failure hypothesis. No structural failure hypothesis, no guilty Muslim fanatics. No guilty Muslim fanatics, no War on Terror.

Some readers will feel I am too generous with Brown and with CNN. But I am not interested in portraying them as broadly "dissident" or as on the political Left. I am simply interested in calling things as I see them and giving credit where credit is due. Anyone who wants a contrast to Brown's performance is free to watch the work of Fox News anchor, Jon Scott, on September 11, 2001. The same confidence that allowed him to name Bin Laden as a suspect 42 seconds after the impact of the second plane allowed him to proclaim the structural failure hypothesis directly after the destruction of the South Tower. He persisted even when his reporters in the field clearly spoke of explosions.

David Lee Miller reported:

we heard a very loud blast, an explosion. We looked up, and the building literally began to collapse before us " ( 10:01:17 a.m. )

Rick Leventhal said:

The FBI is here, as you can see. They had roped this area off. They were taking photographs and securing this area just prior to that huge explosion that we all heard and felt." ( 10:06:39 a.m. )

News anchor Scott was troubled by none of this. He overrode, silenced and patronized Fox reporters. At no point did he even acknowledge the existence of a second reasonable hypothesis for the Trade Center destruction.

Of course, it is true that by the end of the day of September 11, 2001 CNN and Fox were singing from the same hymnbook. But I believe we ought to acknowledge Brown's brief, shining moment and consider what might happen if journalists found their courage and trusted their senses and their minds.

Sources:

Same-day coverage by CNN and Fox for September 11, 2001 has been sporadically available on the Internet. My notes are from my own previously downloaded files. Times should be accurate to within two seconds.

Notes

*Many works have appeared over the years refuting the account of the destruction of the World Trade Center Towers released by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). But special note should be taken of two sources:

Ted Walter, Beyond Misinformation: What Science Says About the Destruction of World Trade Center Buildings 1, 2, and 7. Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, 2015.

https://www.ae911truth.org/images/BeyondMisinfo/Beyond-Misinformation-2015.pdf

Lawyers' Committee for 9/11 Inquiry, First Amended Grand Jury Petition, filed July 30, 2018 at the office of the U.S. Attorney in Manhattan, N.Y.

https://www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org/lc-doj-first-amended-grand-jury-petition/

In addition, a recent academic report on the related destruction of World Trade Center 7 destroys whatever confidence we might have in NIST's accounts:

J. L. Hulsey, et al, A Structural Reevaluation of the Collapse of World Trade Center 7 (draft), University of Alaska Fairbanks, Sept. 2019.

https://salsa3.salsalabs.com/o/50694/signup_page/uaf-wtc7-draft-report?killorg=True&loggedOut=True Facebook Twitter Reddit Pinterest WhatsApp vKontakte Email

Graeme MacQueen is the former director of the Centre for Peace Studies at McMaster University. He is a member of the 9/11 Consensus Panel , former co-editor of the Journal of 9/11 Studies , and an organizer of the 2011 Toronto Hearings, the results of which have been published in book form as The 9/11 Toronto Report. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) Filed under: 9/11 , 911 general analysis , featured , latest Tagged with: Aaron Brown , CNN , Graeme MacQueen by Graeme MacQueen


Doctortrinate

Fact – the WTC's were "shown" to eat the "missing" aeroplanes -- Whole !!!

MASTER OF UNIVE
The Central Intelligence Agency planned the WTC destruction & Controlled Demolition well in advance of their actual detonation of the buildings via remote control of the planted explosives & USA Military Grade Nanothermite method of cutting all the support beams that were made of low carbon steel. Photographic evidence can still be found on Google.

George W. Bush is a mass murderer that was put in place pre-911 via wholly suspicious vote counts in Florida where he actually lost the vote.

Media & punditry should just call a spade a spade and write that the CIA cooked this up as a false flag to usurp voter authority and usher in a police state that will line the pockets & feather their collective nests much better than the democratic process would.

George W. Bush & the Neocons are public enemy #1.

MOU

Michael McNulty
I think because 9/11 was in the pipeline the Republicans had Clinton impeached in an attempt to ruin the Democrat chances in November 2000. They needed to be in the White House to turn back the jet fighters on the day, but more importantly the security agencies under a Gore White House would have uncovered the treasonous plot. When they failed to stop the Democrats and Gore won they actually had to go in and steal it which they were able to do in Florida. Otherwise they'd have all faced capital treason charges.
Editor
Do we think this divides along party lines? The evidence doesn't suggest it
Tim Jenkins
Perhaps somebody could get this chump of the day, Destefano, to give an opinion now today; with the benefit of hindsight & a greater awareness of the physical scientific impossibilities of what he stated on that day, just perhaps, he would like to re-consider his inept scientific comprehension of both physics & chemistry ?

And if gets all 'stroppy' & arrogant, invite him to defend his indefensible opinions, in front of a panel of real independent scientists & demolition experts, on a Livestream; just like we had to endure his BS on that day, we may at least have the chance to avenge, once & for all, to see clearly whose argumentation and expertise stands up to scientific & public scrutiny, for the record.

My money would be on Destefano now avoiding ANY further public discussion & confrontation, simply because his attempts to lie, once again, would be too blatantly obvious, not just to the panel questioning his judgement & knowledge on that day, along with his pathetic powers of suggestion,
but to all viewers
Therefore, invite him and watch him dodge all relevant issues, as a form of ridicule !

Maggie
Proof if we needed it?

https://www.brasscheck.com/video/9-11-wiring-the-buildings/?omhide=true

RobG
The 11th of September 2001 is many things, but mostly it is a blatant example of how easy it is to fool the public, and also a blatant example of how we are ruled by criminal psychopaths.

It's really that simple.

Ieuan Einion
9/11 if it is anything is the date on which Salvador Allende's democratically elected government in Chile was overthrown by US imperialism and 30,000 died as a result. One of the main squares in the departmental capital where I live in France is the Place Salvador Allende; there are no squares named after George Bush or Tony Blair and there never will be.
Tim Jenkins
Give it time, Ieuan: we 'received' a statue of John McCain in Sofia, last year, and this tearful year of extreme poverty in Bulgaria, (engineered by NATZO), the Bulgarians received a monumental statue of iconic ironic 'value', (as central banking financial collapse looms) of Woodrow Wilson talk about marketing & selling yourself and your wholly mathematically inept ways & means; the USA knows no bounds & ground zero scientific knowledge, let alone mathematical equations, it appears
they debase any Learning from mistakes, at all costs.

[Sep 12, 2019] The Dancing Israelis FBI Docs Shed Light on Apparent Mossad Foreknowledge of 9-11 Attacks by Whitney Webb

While we can't ascertain with enough confidence the role of mossad in 9/11, all signs shows that they did have foreknowledge of the event. To the extent comments of UNZ reflects the attitude of common American toward the real culprits of 9/11 it spells troubles for Israel lobby and by extension to the state of Israel in a long run. The pendulum start moving back from high pro-Israel point it reached during Bush administration, when neocons actually run the USA foreign policy.
Sep 12, 2019 | www.unz.com

Based on the impressions of the French website Panamza and subsequently MintPress , three of these photos -- despite the heavy redaction and poor quality -- appear damning. Since 2001, even though the photos were never released until now, it had been known that one of the Israelis arrested -- Sivan Kurzberg -- was seen in a photo "holding a lighted lighter in the foreground, with the smoldering wreckage [of the twin towers] in the background," according to Steven Noah Gordon, then-lawyer for the five Israelis, as cited in a New York Times report from November 2001.

The picture of Kurzberg with the lit lighter appears to be photo #5 in the new FOIA release. Yet, the picture released includes a visible date of September 10, 2001, the day before the attacks, as do two other photos -- images #7 and #8 in the collection -- whereas all other photos with dates show only the month and the year (9 '01). The FOIA release did not provide any information as to the apparent discrepancy in dates.

While this could be explained away as the camera in question being programmed with a slightly inaccurate date, that doesn't seem to be the case for two reasons. First, only three out of the 14 pictures appear to carry that date and, second, previously declassified FBI reports report an eyewitness adamantly stating that Sivan Kurzberg had visited the Doric Apartments on September 10, 2001 at around 3 p.m. with at least one other man, with whom he was conversing in a foreign language, and had identified himself as a "construction worker" to a tenant (page 61 of declassified FBI report ).

In addition, the FBI report noted that a van from Urban Moving Systems, the company that employed the five Israelis at the time of their arrest, was present and was involved in moving a tenant out of the complex on September 10 and that the movers all had foreign accents. Thus, images 5, 7 and 8 may have been taken at the same complex a day before the attacks.

This raises two possibilities. First, that there are two images of Kurzberg with a lit lighter in front of the towers, one taken before the attack and one taken at the time of the attack, and that the FBI released only one of them. Second, that Kurzberg took the picture with the lighter only the day before the attack and his lawyer misrepresented the contents of the photo to the New York Times. Given that the background of the photo -- particularly the state of the towers -- is indiscernible in the recently released photo, it is difficult to determine which is the case.

... ... ...

One report from ABC News dated June 2002 suggests that the Bush administration intervened in the investigation. That report states that "Israeli and U.S. government officials worked out a deal -- and after 71 days, the five Israelis were taken out of jail, put on a plane, and deported back home [to Israel]." If the Bush administration had cut a deal with Israel's government to cover up the incident, it certainly would not have been the first time a U.S. presidential administration had done so on Israel's behalf.

Further evidence that higher-ups in the administration intervened is the fact that then-Attorney General John Ashcroft personally signed off on the detainees' release. Upon his entering the private sector as a lobbyist and consultant in 2005, the Israeli government became one of Ashcroft's first clients .

A cover-up certainly seems to have happened to some extent, between the destruction of records of the investigation and the fact that official conclusions of the investigation do not add up. In the latter case, the FBI -- in a file dated September 24, 2001– officially stated that they "determined that none of the Israelis were actively engaged in clandestine intelligence activities in the United States." However, that conclusion was directly contradicted by U.S. officials a year later and by the fact that Israel's own government subsequently acknowledged that the five Israelis had indeed been involved in "clandestine intelligence activities in the United States."

In addition, the new FOIA release of the photos suggests that another FBI conclusion -- that "none of the pictures developed from the film found inside the 35-mm camera depicted the twin towers prior to the attack" -- was inaccurate. This may explain why the images released via the recent FOIA request were heavily edited leaving details in the background greatly obscured, making it impossible to determine whether the photos were taken prior to or during the attacks based solely on the state of the towers.

... ... ...

The FBI returned to search the premises of Urban Moving Systems a month later, but by that time found:

The building and all of its contents had been abandoned by the owner of Urban Moving Systems. This [was] apparently being done to avoid criminal prosecution after the 09/11/2001 arrest of five of his employees and subsequent seizure of his office computer systems by members of the FBI-NK on or around 09/13/2001."

The company's owner -- Dominik Otto Suter, an Israeli citizen -- had fled to Israel on September 14, 2001, two days after he had been questioned by the FBI. The FBI told ABC News that "Urban Moving may have been providing cover for an Israeli intelligence operation." Surprisingly, since at least 2016, Suter has been living in the San Francisco Bay Area, where he works for a contractor for major tech companies like Google and Microsoft. According to the public records database Intelius , in 2006 and 2007 Suter also worked for a telecommunications company -- Granite Telecommunications -- that works for the U.S. military and several other U.S. government agencies.

In addition to Urban Moving Systems, another moving company, Classic International Movers, became of interest in connection with the investigation into the "Dancing Israelis," which led to the arrest and detention of four Israeli nationals who worked for this separate moving company. The FBI's Miami Division had alerted the Newark Division that Classic International Movers was believed to have been used by one of the 19 alleged 9/11 hijackers before the attack, and one of the "Dancing Israelis" had the number for Classic International Movers written in a notebook that was seized at the time of his arrest. The report further states that one of the Israelis of Classic International Movers who was arrested "was visibly disturbed by the Agents' questioning regarding his personal email account."

A crowded dance floor

While the case of the "Dancing Israelis" has long been treated as an outlier in the aftermath of September 11, what is often overlooked is the fact that hundreds of Israeli nationals were arrested in the aftermath of the attacks.

According to a FOX News report from December 2001, 60 Israelis were apprehended or detained after September 11, with most deported, and a total of 140 Israelis were arrested and detained in all of 2001 by federal authorities. That report claimed that the arrests, ostensibly including the "Dancing Israelis," were in relation to an investigation of "an organized [Israeli] intelligence gathering operation designed to 'penetrate government facilities.'"

The report also added that most of those arrested, in addition to having served in the IDF, had "intelligence expertise" and worked for Israeli companies that specialized in wiretapping. Some of those detained were also active members of the Israeli military; and several detainees, including the "Dancing Israelis," had failed polygraph tests when asked if they had been surveilling the U.S. government.

A key aspect of that report, compiled by journalist Carl Cameron, also states that federal investigators widely suspected that Israeli intelligence had prior knowledge of the September 11 attacks. In the report, Cameron stated:

The Israelis may have gathered intelligence about the attacks in advance and not shared it. A highly placed investigator said there are 'tie-ins' but when asked for details he flatly refused to describe them saying: 'Evidence linking these Israelis to 9-11 is classified. I cannot tell you about the evidence that has been gathered. It is classified information.'"

One exchange between Cameron and host Brit Hume included in the report is particularly telling:

HUME : "Carl, what about this question of advanced knowledge of what was going to happen on 9/11? How clear are investigators that some Israeli agents may have known something?"

CAMERON : "Well it's very explosive information obviously and there is a great deal of evidence that they say they have collected. None of it necessarily conclusive. It's more when they put it all together a big question they say is, 'How could they have not known?' -- almost a direct quote, Brit."

However, it is essential to note that Israeli intelligence did attempt to warn the U.S. government at least twice beginning in August 2001 as did the intelligence agencies of many other countries, including France, the UK, Egypt, Russia and Jordan. Yet, no people connected to any other intelligence agency other than Israel were caught celebrating the attacks as they took place in the area nor were accused by mainstream media of operating a large spy ring within the U.S. at the time. One theory to explain this discrepancy is that the Mossad elements of which the "Dancing Israelis" and other alleged Israeli spies could have been part of a specific section of Israeli intelligence that were acting independently as a rogue agency. Such a possibility is not unusual given that divisions of or groups within the CIA have been known to " go rogue " on several occasions.

9/11 as a big -- and acknowledged -- Israeli win

If the "Dancing Israelis", and more broadly the Mossad and the Israeli government, had foreknowledge of September 11, why would they remain silent and not attempt to warn the American government or public of the coming attacks? In the case of the "Dancing Israelis," why would Israelis celebrate such an attack?

One of the detained "Dancing Israelis," Omer Marmari, told police the following about why he viewed the September 11 attacks in a positive light:

Israel now has hope that the world will now understand us. Americans are naïve and America is easy to get inside. There are not a lot of checks in America. And now America will be tougher about who gets into their country."

While Marmari's statement may suggest one reason some of the "Dancing Israelis" were so "visibly happy" in their photographs, there are also other statements made by top Israeli politicians that suggest why the Israeli government and its intelligence agency declined to act on apparent foreknowledge of the attack.

When asked, on the day of the 9/11 attacks, how the attacks would affect American-Israeli relations, Benjamin Netanyahu -- the current Israeli prime minister -- told the New York Times that "It's very good," before quickly adding "Well, not very good, but it will generate immediate sympathy." He then predicted, much as Marmari had, that the attacks would "strengthen the bond between our two peoples, because we've experienced terror over so many decades, but the United States has now experienced a massive hemorrhaging of terror."

Netanyahu, in a candid conversation recorded in 2001, also echoed Marmari's claim that Americans are naïve. In that recording, Netanyahu said :

I know what America is. America is something that can easily be moved. Moved to the right direction. They won't get in our way. They won't get in our way 80 percent of the Americans support us. It's absurd."

In addition, also on the day of the September 11 attacks, Netanyahu -- who at the time was not in political office -- held a press conference in which he claimed that he had predicted the attacks on the World Trade Center by "militant Islam" in his 1995 book, Fighting Terrorism: How Democracies Can Defeat Domestic and International Terrorism. In that book, Netanyahu had posited that Iranian-linked "militants" would set off a nuclear bomb in the basement of the World Trade Center.

During his press conference on the day of the attacks, Netanyahu also asserted that the 9/11 attacks would be a turning point for America and compared them to the 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor. Netanyahu's statement echoes the infamous line from the " Rebuilding America's Defenses " document authored by the neoconservative think tank, the Project for a New Ameican Century (PNAC). That line reads. "Further, the process of transformation [towards a neo-Reaganite foreign policy and hyper-militarism], even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event -- like a new Pearl Harbor."

Then again, years later In 2008, the Israeli newspaper Maariv reported that Netanyahu had stated that the September 11 attacks had greatly benefited Israel. He was quoted as saying : "We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq."

Indeed, it goes without saying that the aftermath of 9/11 -- which involved the U.S. leading a destructive effort throughout the Middle East -- has indeed benefited Israel. Many of the U.S.' post-9/11 "nation-building" efforts have notably mirrored the policy paper " A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm ," which was authored by American neoconservatives -- PNAC members among them -- for Netanyahu's first term as prime minister.

That document calls for the creation of a "New Middle East" by, among other things, "weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria" and "removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq -- an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right." As is known now, both of those main objectives have since come to pass, each with strong Israeli involvement .

Update | This article was updated to include and accommodate alternative analyses of the newly released photos as well information on Israeli intelligence warnings to the U.S. prior to September 11, 2001 that came to the attention of MintPress after initial its publication.

Feature photo | Four of the Israeli nationals arrested for "puzzling behavior" during the September 11 attacks are seen casually posing together in front of the Manhattan skyline while the September 11 attacks were in progress | Photo #1

Whitney Webb is a MintPress News journalist based in Chile. She has contributed to several independent media outlets including Global Research, EcoWatch, the Ron Paul Institute and 21st Century Wire, among others. She has made several radio and television appearances and is the 2019 winner of the Serena Shim Award for Uncompromised Integrity in Journalism.


dirtyharriet , says: September 12, 2019 at 3:50 am GMT

18 years later, an important question once asked by Pat Buchanan still rings true: "Cui bono-who benefits? – is ever the question that must be asked about Middle Eastern terror"

Without Saudi funding, 9/11 could not have occurred. Yet Trump is seeking to cover up for the Saudis who might be implicated in an upcoming report about 9/11.

The more that time goes by, the more it's revealed the cozy relationship between Israel and the house of Saud, the more it is seems likely that Israel participated in 9/11.

Was it a joint venture between the two countries? One funded and provided the hijackers, and one rigged the buildings with thermite so that they'd fall? All in an effort to get America to take out the common threats to both Israel and Saudi Arabia (ex. Saddam, Iran, Bashar Al Assad)?

If so, some at the highest levels of our government know, and they know that there's not much that can be done about it.

In any event, and strangely, America did not attack Saudi Arabia in the years after 9/11, as one would have expected given their involvement in that incident.

Instead, we are providing them with weapons, and they are now seeking to acquire nuclear energy.

Does that really make sense?

It would if the US was being cowed into it by some form of blackmail.

Such as getting away wtih gunning down untold amounts of people in a large and popular city and having a patsy to take the fall, no video footage evidence ever provided of the patsy going to and from his hotel room, despite it being one of the most surveiled cities in America.

In fact, in the hours after this mass shooting, Trump met with Sheldon Adelson, staunch Israel-supporter and campaign financier.

And then Trump within weeks declared that the US will move its embassy to Jerusalem.

Just a strange collection of events, isn't it? Almost like being told that Epstein actually killing himself .

Colin Wright , says: Website September 12, 2019 at 4:09 am GMT
@Vincenzo Ferretti Here: this one's still up.

http://www.todayscatholicworld.com/mossad-agents-911.htm

exiled off mainstreet , says: September 12, 2019 at 4:24 am GMT
I always refer to 11 September as National Reichstag Fire Day. However it happened it was certainly used opportunistically by the yankee regime (and the zionists) to bolster the dictatorial and authoritarian elements of the regime. I am certain that the Israelis, at the least, were aware of the conspiracy as it occurred.
AnonStarter , says: September 12, 2019 at 4:30 am GMT
@Colin Wright https://web.archive.org/web/20020802194310/http://abcnews.go.com/sections/2020/DailyNews
Anon [428] Disclaimer , says: September 12, 2019 at 5:17 am GMT
How the Jew Israeli Artists did 911 and got away with it –

https://www.youtube.com/embed/X65VunrO6DQ?feature=oembed

Why The Military Knows Israel Did 9/11 –

https://www.youtube.com/embed/kVKGRB3cygg?feature=oembed

Franklin Ryckaert , says: September 12, 2019 at 5:35 am GMT

" One theory to explain this discrepancy is that the Mossad elements of which the "Dancing Israelis" and other alleged Israeli spies could have been part of a specific section of Israeli intelligence that were acting independently as a rogue agency . Such a possibility is not unusual given that divisions of or groups within the CIA have been known to "go rogue" on several occasions "

Such an explanation is wholly unnecessary. Not only is the Mossad "rogue" enough, Israel itself is a rogue state engaged in false flag terrorism all the time. Heck, the state itself was created by terrorism. Rogue state, rogue secret service, rogue operation, it's all par for the course.

ValmMond , says: September 12, 2019 at 5:44 am GMT
You aren't really trying. Are you?

https://www.youtube.com/embed/2XHm56O2NTI?feature=oembed

NoseytheDuke , says: September 12, 2019 at 5:50 am GMT
How does that old saying go? . With friends like these ..
niteranger , says: September 12, 2019 at 5:52 am GMT
Whenever and wherever strange murders, government problems, assassinations, and evil presents itself there is a good chance that Israel is involved in one way or another. From the Anthrax letters to the 9/11 attacks who benefits and follow the money are all you need to know.

There is no other group, nation, tribe, or country that has destroyed more of mankind in one way or another than Israel. And the worst thing about all of it is they never pay for it and just laugh in face of the weak goy.

Armaggedon , says: September 12, 2019 at 6:09 am GMT
Of course Israel had foreknowledge as they organized the "event".

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=911+israel+did+it&t=ffsb&ia=videos

Mark James , says: September 12, 2019 at 6:11 am GMT

as early as 8:00 a.m. that day, more than 40 minutes prior to the attack.

There has been some controversy about the exact time the schlomos arrived. I would think there are ways of finding out and not depending on the one eye witness (who came forward). The FBI almost certainly knows. It would be significant to find that out.

Either Mossad was incredibly careless in their celebration or they wanted to be caught. I haven't made up my mind yet as to which it was. I lean towards the latter. In either case we've never been given an adequate explanation and deserve much better. So naturally we are not going to get it.
And it's great to know the manager of Urban Moving Systems who had fled to Israel within 24 hours of the attack is now back in the USA working in the Bay Area. No doubt spying, for someone?

Been_there_done_that , says: September 12, 2019 at 6:37 am GMT

" Apparent Mossad Foreknowledge "

This foreknowledge was already blatantly apparent early on, while events were just beginning to unfold during that fateful morning in Manhattan because alleged co-conspirator Ehud Barak was kind enough to make a personal appearance, concurrently, directly at BBC News headquarters in London (oh so "coincidentally", for coincidence theorists), playing the role of spontaneous "anchor", to proclaim his scripted interpretation of what this major incident supposedly meant and suggest future policy guidelines that the US government should adopt in response. After years of planning for the big event he just couldn't resist putting himself into the spotlight, very eager to lay out the intended narrative – just too revealing!

Ehud Barak interview at BBC in London during the 9-11 attack:

https://www.youtube.com/embed/V4Zj1fnGtjk?feature=oembed

Basically, they botched their operation, which was far too complex to carry out without making tell-tale mistakes, but the media, FBI, and many others zealously covered up for them, after the fact, with a multitude of transparent lies and distortions. However, too many people were not fooled.

Ghali , says: September 12, 2019 at 6:39 am GMT
"Saudi funding" is Fake News used to deflect attention away from the real perpetrator of the crime, the Jewish State of Israel. Overwhelming evidence shows the Israelis were deeply involved in the attacks. where as there is NO (zilch) evidence to imolicate Saudi Arabia
Greg Bacon , says: Website September 12, 2019 at 7:27 am GMT
IMO, 9/11 was an Israeli masterminded False Flag, with help from traitors in the WH, the FBI, CIA, NSA and Pentagon. With lots of help from the MSM, including that 'paper of record,' the New York Times, which has a distinguished track record of lying to Americans.

The Times lied about their good friend Uncle Joe Stalin, starving millions of Ukrainians to death and they lied about Saddam having WMD's.

Until Americans get off their lazy asses and start raising hell about 9/11, demanding the truth be told, we'll just keep circling the bowl, right into the cesspit of totalitarianism.

jasmin , says: September 12, 2019 at 8:05 am GMT
Of course, the Israelis knew of this in advance–they participated in the planning and carrying out of the event. This was a false flag event. The Israelis after the Levon Affair and the attack on the USS Liberty realized they can do anything because they literally own the news media and the own the Congress of the United States. And yes, it's about the "Benjamins"

Israel is the classic bully that is backed up by its big brother America. Both countries need a good bloody nose to come into line with civilized society. That bloody nose will come.

GMC , says: September 12, 2019 at 8:48 am GMT
The only discussion of 9/11 should be of the evidence in the Southern District of NY NY and the new Grand Jury. Much of the new evidence, from real professionals including nuclear scientists has been presented. It's a Homerun, yet the corrupt judicial system has been sitting on it for over a year. Of course , what would one expect – from the City that financed and sent all those Trotskyites to Saint Petersburg, Russia.There should be thousands awaiting trials by now, but we see – nothing. America will not recover until Washington and NY is over run by the people – similiar to the Nam protests but 10xs larger. Thanks Unz Rev.
Robert Dolan , says: September 12, 2019 at 10:05 am GMT
Israel/AIPAC run the United States government. AIPAC is the most powerful lobby in Washington. Israel got 38 billion dollars, while we get more mexicans.

Israel takes part of that money (from our taxpayers) to buy off our leaders so they provide more support for Israel.

This is the circle of life.

Anonymous [110] Disclaimer , says: September 12, 2019 at 10:23 am GMT

The company's owner -- Dominik Otto Suter, an Israeli citizen -- had fled to Israel on September 14, 2001, two days after he had been questioned by the FBI. The FBI told ABC News that "Urban Moving may have been providing cover for an Israeli intelligence operation." Surprisingly, since at least 2016, Suter has been living in the San Francisco Bay Area, where he works for a contractor for major tech companies like Google and Microsoft. According to the public records database Intelius, in 2006 and 2007 Suter also worked for a telecommunications company -- Granite Telecommunications -- that works for the U.S. military and several other U.S. government agencies.

Lol! They don't even care about optics anymore. The US is a proper Banana Republic now.

Hans , says: September 12, 2019 at 11:26 am GMT
@JimDandy LOL. They're working double overtime these days. Give em a break. The clown car got out of the blocks fast with the first comment but then went into the ditch.

This is one of the great ones: Mossad Juval Aviv: "It's easy to put a truck bomb as we did in London" –

watch-v=w5EFzG7eVoc

Justvisiting , says: September 12, 2019 at 11:39 am GMT
@dirtyharriet

It would if the US was being cowed into it by some form of blackmail.

People get blackmailed, not nations.

The people in the intelligence communities of the US, Israel, Saudi, and many other countries are all implicated in a wide variety of crimes that the others know about–think of it as a circle of blackmail.

At some point the members in the circle internalize the reality of the situation and start acting as allies.

If they stick around long enough they become friends.

Jake , says: September 12, 2019 at 11:53 am GMT

Of course the Mossad had foreknowledge of some kind. But so did the CIA and the Brit SIS. And probably so did the Saudi General Intelligence Presidency.

At least the first named 3, and probably the Saudis as well, were behind long range planning to stage such an event to justify war foreign policy.

Miro23 , says: September 12, 2019 at 12:19 pm GMT
It's plainly obvious that they were foreign agents complicit in the murder of 3000 Americans.

A normal result would be their execution or lifetime imprisonment, with their collaborators in the US administration (who covered for them, tampered with evidence and released them) getting the same. The threads of treason are followed through US society to the end (the office of President), carrying the same penalties.

US society is probably building up to do this, likely illegally, given the prospects for chaos and the hopeless state of American "justice".

Hans , says: September 12, 2019 at 12:44 pm GMT
@ChuckOrloski Chuck, why the hell were our "good buddies" and "best friends" the Israelis posing for pictures with cigarette lighters during the attack? My guess it's some deep Talmudic holy practice that is too subtle and holy for the cattle to grasp.

"The five aroused attention in New Jersey after people noticed them going to unusual lengths to photograph the World Trade Center ruins and making light of the situation. One photograph developed by the F.B.I. showed Sivan Kurzberg holding a lighted lighter in the foreground, with the smoldering wreckage in the background , said Steven Noah Gordon, a lawyer for the five."

I'd love to be chosen enough to see what the other photos contained if the NY Slimes is willing to admit this much. You have to wade thru a lot of oy veys and tears of "A Nation Challenged" to get to the scraps of truth:

https://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/21/us/nation-challenged-detainees-dozens-israeli-jews-are-being-kept-federal-detention.html

Durruti , says: September 12, 2019 at 12:51 pm GMT
Whitney Webb,

The Israelis Dance on our Graves:

Thanks for the informative exposé of one more crime committed against America (9/11), by the Zionist/Jewish/Rothschild & other Financial Oligarchs,' New World Order.

We Americans have the Moral Duty and Physical Necessity of regaining our Sovereignty and our Honor, by Restoring Our Republic

JessicaR , says: September 12, 2019 at 12:54 pm GMT
First of all, thank you, Ron Unz, for allowing this article to be published on your site.

Secondly, does anyone on this site remember the messages workers at Odigo, the Israeli instant messaging company, received *two hours* before the attacks. These messages seem to have warned about the attacks. Yet, even though Israeli *civilians* know the content of the messages, this content has never been made public to the American people.

Perhaps the next FOIA request should be for these messages.

I have long suspected that a few people in Israeli intelligence, perhaps the children of Jews from Arab lands who grew up speaking Arabic as a first language, located an al-Qaeda cell and encouraged the attack, perhaps offering practical assistance as well.

This kind of cause means that only a few people knew about it. Perhaps most Knesset members had no clue whatsoever. This sort of action would be easier to conceal and would have the additional advantage of plausible deniability as the Arabs who knew would mostly be dead.

Bardon Kaldian , says: September 12, 2019 at 12:57 pm GMT
Not convincing. If Mossad had been involved in this operation, it would have sent serious people as masterminds or as observers. So would have done any agency worth its salt (BND, CIA, KGB/FSB, former Bulgarian & Romanian assassins ).

And what Mossad is supposed to have done?

Sending some guys who are overwhelmed by joy because of their machinations and . dance. High five. Yaaay

These guys, if they had been the right stuff, would have invisibly blended into the crowd & no one would have noticed them. They wouldn't even have blinked at the sight of collapsing towers. Or would feign horror & astonishment.

And they dance, high fiving.

You seriously want me to believe these guys were not some neurotic looneys, but Mossad pros?

Not convincing at all.

Roberto Masioni , says: September 12, 2019 at 12:58 pm GMT
I know a couple hundred people personally and talk to them throughout the year. Though I see many people doubting the official story of 9/11 online, none of them are brave enough to doubt it out loud, nor do I ever hear of others doing so. I understand the fear, of course, but c'mon. This isn't about one's personal opinion of the O.J. Simpson trial. This is far more important.

Will the majority of Americans ever wake up and speak up? If and when they do, what will happen to the dollar?

Harold Smith , says: September 12, 2019 at 1:11 pm GMT

"However, it is essential to note that Israeli intelligence did attempt to warn the U.S. government at least twice beginning in August 2001 as did the intelligence agencies of many other countries, including France, the UK, Egypt, Russia and Jordan."

However, it is even more essential to note that these "warnings" were not detailed, actionable warnings, but a calculatedly deceptive inculpation; part of a psyop whereby the "government" could pin the blame for 9/11 on "al Qaeda" without any kind of an investigation.

typeviic , says: September 12, 2019 at 1:49 pm GMT
Visit Christopher Bollyn's site. best 911 investigative journalism.

http://www.bollyn.com/home/

wayfarer , says: September 12, 2019 at 1:55 pm GMT
9/11 After 18 Years by Paul Craig Roberts.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/52238.htm
Been_there_done_that , says: September 12, 2019 at 2:10 pm GMT
@ChuckOrloski

"Even if these agents were "rogue" Mossad, there was plenty of other remote angles from which they could have documented & celebrated the evil event."

They were inexperienced and did not take into account that the woman who called the police noticed their suspicious behavior with the aid of strong binoculars. They were there to do more than take some pictures and celebrate, more importantly to stage another spectacular event, namely to set off their van, filled with explosives, at the middle of the Washington Bridge, which, like the three World Trade buildings, would have been prepared with micro thermite, during prior work that was done there.

To say that they were documenting the event is to downplay what they were surely up to, which can be inferred from a contemporaneous report. Note the following quote embedded in the link referred to in Comment #4 above:

American security services overnight stopped a car bomb on the George Washington Bridge. The van, packed with explosives, was stopped on an approach ramp to the bridge. Authorities suspect the terrorists intended to blow up the main crossing between New Jersey and New York, Army Radio reported. (Jerusalem Post 09/12/01)

Media in the U.S. subsequently referred merely to explosive "residue", which is technically correct but grossly misleading. According to reports at the time, three of the five initial dancers were in the van, dressed in Islamic garments, with plane tickets to fly away in different directions. A likely scenario, which was thwarted by their apprehension, is not difficult to image in light of the Jerusalem Post report, and could have played out like this:

Perpetrators stall van at the side of the road near the double cable at its lowest point, flip up the front hood, as if to signal engine trouble, be seen by other drivers in their conspicuous clothing, then escape by hailing taxis driven by accomplices, leaving the Islamic clothes in the taxis, rendezvous with the other two dancers in Manhattan driving a different van, then head for the airport. Authorities would soon close off the bridge to traffic, based on reports of the suspicious vehicle, possibly set to be blown up. Helicopters with TV crews focus on the van from above, keeping viewers in suspense until dusk, and suddenly there is a bright flash and fireball rising from the van, as the right side of the bridge is ripped apart, assisted by the thermite charges at the cables; both halves of the roadway fall into the water, very spectacular, right during prime time, perhaps the cables on the northern side might remain intact. Millions of people watching live are then led to think that Arabs not only blew up the World Trade Center buildings but also the Washington Bridge.

The time these amateur dancers spent in custody, followed by deportation, was indeed very lenient punishment for having presumably participated in blowing up the only bridge that connects Manhattan with New Jersey.

DanFromCT , says: September 12, 2019 at 2:29 pm GMT
@Mark James There are undoubtedly agents still living and documents still unshredded that connect the dancing schlomos from Urban Moving with the dancing schlomos in the FBI, FAA, etc. who oversaw the destruction of the evidence under Chertoff and Mueller. Virtually everything in the massive NFPA Code 921 Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations was disregarded without that evidence of criminal conspiracy itself being investigated. The plain facts of the matter will also eventually prove that the elaborate efforts at concealment by the owners of the msm provide powerful evidence of their guilt as co-conspirators complicit from day one in pulling off 9/11.

The msm cover up of the truth I saw from watching some of the news yesterday is so absurd that a prize should be awarded for coining a name for it. Something to neutralize the fifth column and their wholly owned msm's combining the words "conspiracy," which best describes themselves, and "theory," now incredibly meaning an automatic falsification of observation, measurement, and the laws of physics if any of it disagrees with what amounts to an official fairytale for children about naughty Arabs who magically flew airplanes into buildings because they hate us for our freedoms.

I caught a few minutes of Fox News yesterday. Appalling that anyone with half a brain would swallow that bilge about 19 Arabs who couldn't handle a Cessna 150, etc. They're still using flag-waving jingoism and country music to encapsulate the Israeli-first meme as more American than apple pie and insinuating that pointing out absurdities with the 9/11 fairytale is tantamount to collaboration with the enemy. I had to laugh out loud watching Sean Hannity pretend to be so genuine in his patriotism it causes him to slip into lisping baby talk, like he's now aping Trish Regan and Shep Smith. The conservative movement's come a long way, from political rationalism to one of their hero's talking baby talk overnight. No wonder the left is already doing victory laps.

Altai , says: September 12, 2019 at 2:44 pm GMT
Isn't that the point. Whether or not 9/11 was a conspiracy or allowed to happen, the response to it was an actual conspiracy. The response would have been the same in either situation, that's the point, that's the conspiracy.

In the event that an attack like 9/11 could have ever been motivated by actual terrorists, the motivation also derives from the US slavish backing of Israel.

Durruti , says: September 12, 2019 at 3:34 pm GMT
@Bardon Kaldian

You seriously want me to believe these guys were not some neurotic looneys, but Mossad pros?

You raise some intelligent points for us.

I will raise a few for you.

1. The Dancing Scum behaved quite rationally & soberly during their TV interviews in the Entity.
They displayed no nuttiness or neurosis of any kind.
Their dress & comportment in the USA – was as swarthy scruffy Semites (Arabs). On Entity TV, they were well shaven, washed, & 'white as the driven snow.'

2. Acting neurotic & loonyish is a good cover – in itself. Apparently, only one witness noticed them (enough) to bother to call the police.

3. They did their job. They took their pictures. Which is not to say that other (higher definition & more Professional pictures were not taken elsewhere). That is what happened. We have seen some of those higher definition videos, and pictures – taken by Film Crews & other Media employees.

4. It is difficult to take photos of a Huge Tragedy/Assault & "blended into the crowd & no one would have noticed them. " They almost succeeded in "blended into the crowd."

5. These Dancers might have served as a distraction. Might-Might Distract from what?

6. The Dancers reception in the Entity was quite friendly. They were treated as heroes. Why?

Yes, there is much We-The-American-People do not know about this Assault. We agree on that.

former Bulgarian & Romanian assassins

? Are they worth their salt?

The buildings came down. One was not even hit by a bird, let alone a plane.

NoseytheDuke , says: September 12, 2019 at 3:36 pm GMT
@Anonymous https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/sep/12/israel-planted-spying-devices-near-white-house-says-report
Hans , says: September 12, 2019 at 4:13 pm GMT
@Sean

Dr. Alan Sabrosky, former Director of Studies at the US Army War College , on Israel's Attack on America on 9/11 –

"Until we demand an independent, honest, and thorough investigation and accountability for those whose action and inaction led to those events and the cover-up, our republic and our Constitution remain in the gravest danger." – Lt. Col. Shelton F. Lankford, U.S. Marine Corps (ret) – Retired U.S. Marine Corps fighter pilot with over 300 combat missions flown. Decorations include the Distinguished Flying Cross and 32 awards of the Air Medal.

"The government story is total B.S. plain and simple." – Capt. Russ Wittenberg, U.S. Air Force, Flew for Pan Am and United Airlines for 35 years. Had previously flown the actual two United Airlines aircraft that were hijacked on 9/11. Former U.S. Air Force fighter pilot with over 100 combat missions.

"No Arab hijacker, ever in a million years, ever flew into the World Trade Center. And if you got 30 minutes I'll tell you exactly why Maybe if I had a couple tries to line up a few building, I could have done it. But certainly not the first time and certainly not at 500 or 600 miles an hour." – John Lear, over 19,000+ total hours flown in over 100 different types of planes for 10 different airlines in 60 different countries around the world. Holds every certificate ever offered by the FAA and has 23 different FAA type ratings. Held 17 world records including speed around the world in a Lear Jet Model 24. More at patriotsquestion911.com

wayfarer , says: September 12, 2019 at 4:17 pm GMT

Israel accused of planting spy devices near the White House.

The miniature surveillance devices, colloquially known as "StingRays," mimic regular cell towers to fool cellphones into giving them their locations and identity information. Formally called international mobile subscriber identity-catchers or IMSI-catchers, they also can capture the contents of calls and data use.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/12/israel-white-house-spying-devices-1491351

Ron Unz , says: September 12, 2019 at 5:27 pm GMT
@Franklin Ryckaert

Your "argument" dear (((Sean))) Your arrogance will be your undoing.

There are quite a few longtime commenters on this website whom I've always strongly suspected of being pro-Israeli activists operating under "deep cover."

One of the more amusing aspects of articles like this one is that it has naturally drawn a few of them out and forced them to permanently unmask and reveal themselves

Hans , says: September 12, 2019 at 5:37 pm GMT
@Sean (((Sean))), he's been confronted several times if I recall. I remember his scuttling away in one instance.

Anyhow, here' one instance that may have slipped your mind –

Alden , says: September 12, 2019 at 5:38 pm GMT
@ValmMond Don't forget the Israeli kiosks selling sunglasses key rings and hair ribbons that littered every shopping mall. Those tiny corporations were used for a lot of HI B fraud, SBA loan fraud importation of prostitutes, money laundering mail box drops all sorts of things useful for both spying and crime. It was as much a cliche of Israeli immigrant small business as manicurists are for Asian women.
ValmMond , says: September 12, 2019 at 5:51 pm GMT
@Bardon Kaldian They had foreknowledge. Foreknowledge indicates complicity. It's obvious even for the dumbest of official version supporters. That's why the incident and the israelis' subsequent arrest were scrubbed from most mainstream news outlets.
The high-fiving dancers' exact role in the 9/11 events is irrelevant. All 5 knew on that morning why they were on that NJ hill overlooking lower Manhattan and what was coming to the twin towers. Conspicuous celebration must have not been part of their job description, but hey, it was mission accomplished and the goyim were not looking. As it turned out, they were. But in the end, it didn't really matter. They'll keep seeing the Trees for the Forest (Gump?) and when one of these trees falls, it shall make no noise in the zionized informational vacuum.
911 Truther , says: September 12, 2019 at 6:06 pm GMT
Ron, Pastor Chuck Baldwin, who was a confirmed Zionist until after a Damascus moment, posted on his site this piece about a book that names names, and provides facts. It's worth reading.

It's ironic when not just Christians–real Christians–should venerate the truth, that anyone of conscience seeking the truth is attacked and called a truther.

As Orlov wrote about conspiracies, we don't have to get to the details on how they're done. Let those who push the fake narrative explain all the failures on 911 and why Bush, Cheney, the Joint Chiefs, the heads of CIA and FBI didn't resign if the perpetrators were Muslims with box-cutters.

Orlov:

https://cluborlov.blogspot.com/2019/07/highly-unlikely-conspiracies.html

annamaria , says: September 12, 2019 at 6:09 pm GMT
@Durruti "Zionist/Jewish/Rothschild & other Financial Oligarchs,' New World Order."

-- Perhaps the focus should be on the "local" organizers and yes-men, beginning with Cheney the Traitor, Bush the lesser, Rice the Mushroom Cloud, Tenant, Mueller, and the opportunistic higherups among the US brass -- all those who put their comfort (money and power) before the well-being of their country. They allowed the "event" to happen (some perhaps were actively involved in preparation for the "event"), and they made the financial killing and literal killing of great numbers of humans in the aftermath.

At least, Israelis have been destroying the US (by pushing the US resources towards the wars of aggression in the Middle East) to protect and promote their myth-based ideological toy of Eretz Israel. In comparison, the US government/Pentagon have solidified into a bunch of traitors and become engaged in the pornography of betrayal at home and mass slaughter abroad for ba$e profiteering. The US Congress of corrupt cowards has been stinking like rotten fish.

Until the local rot and poisoning continues, the country will be open to deadly infections and diseases.

Truth3 , says: September 12, 2019 at 6:14 pm GMT
Because people do not understand Mathematics, particularly the sciences of Physics and Statistics & Probability, they are susceptible to believing completely improbable and impossible explanations that are utterly false, yet widely accepted.

... ... ...

Bardon Kaldian , says: September 12, 2019 at 6:26 pm GMT
@Durruti

It appears you were/are looking for a way to exculpate the Zionist Oligarchs from one of their many crimes against humanity (and against my Country, America), the crime of 9/11 & the attacks on the Arab Nations – that followed. You will have to debate with Webb, Unz, and some others to effect that denial; although the New York Times, or Haaretz might be interested and easier pickings.

Sorry, but- get a shrink. If you seriously think that "Zionist Oligarchs" exist as some sinister organization or actual Jewish group masterminding or controlling most of US foreign policy- there is not anything to discuss. True: a) in the US, Jews as an ethnic group are way over-represented in the corridors of power, constituting perhaps ~20% of American power elites; b) Zionist Jews, and by that I mean not Jewish supporters of Israel, but "Israeli firsters" who are Jews first & Americans second (or hardly at all) are a clear minority in that ethnic (sub)group, no more than 20% of them (and that would be, I think, overestimate). Israeli firsters & similar ilk are well described in Walt & Mearsheimer's book on the Israeli lobby; just, apart from Jonathan Pollard & probably a few other spies, there is not enough evidence to pinpoint the great pro-Israeli plot and especially anything convincing re twin towers collapse.

The article has not shown what those dancing Israelis did actually do , except for taking pictures & behaving like neurotics under stress. Woody Allen would have been more persuasive as an Israeli spy.

9/11 or 11/9? When someone points gleefully to the typos, it is a sure sign he has nothing to say or argue.

These dancers were not obviously complicit in anything & much more important – it is not obvious that it, the twin towers collapse, was something planned or executed at higher levels than the official version says.

The whole conspiratorial mindset is, when I think of it, similar to the later phases of German classical philosophy, Hegel in particular. These guys (Hegel, Schelling) had built immense, gigantic philosophical superstructures (history, metaphysics, philosophy of law, Naturphilosophie ..) based on slim empirical evidence & tried to fit those vast structures in the Procrustean bed of their narrow world-view. For instance Hegel refused to acknowledge that Uranus existed because that would mean that Pythagorean structures, with sacred number 7, were inadequate as explanatory paradigms of nature.

The same goes, on a significantly lower level, with many conspiracy theories, including 9/11 truthers. There are some info, data & events that are somehow shady, dubious or hard to explain. Also, some data are questionable- or not, I don't know.

What better than to accept some grand & all-encompassing quasi-explanation ?

Bardon Kaldian , says: September 12, 2019 at 6:41 pm GMT
@Alfred Spooks can be divided in a few classes, at least two: masterminds & operatives. Masterminds are rare (Wild Bill Donovan, Dulles, Canaris, Schellenberg, Heydrich, J.J. Angleton, Beria, ). Great operatives are also rare (Rudolf Abel, Richard Sorge, Sydney Reilly, Elie Cohen the fake Syrian ). Clumsy operatives are more frequent (the Rosenberg couple), while some are hard to classify (Klaus Fuchs) & others are numbskulls who just got lucky for some time (Jonathan Pollard).

If Mossad (or any other agency, Israeli, American or any combination of all spooks in the world combined) tried to to plan & execute such a vast, breathtaking operation that would change history, far surpassing JFK assassination or nuclear weapons secrets theft -they would have employed qualified people & not someone worse than agent Piglet.

Republic , says: September 12, 2019 at 7:05 pm GMT
@Franklin Ryckaert re

:See for example their clumsy Dubai operation (Google : Assassination of Mahmoud Al-Mabhouh

also see the failed 1997 assassination attempt of Khaled Mashal in Amman,Jordan. Mossad agents put a fast acting poison into his ear. However they were soon captured. King Hussein of Jordan demanded that Israel turn over the antidote of the poison or Jordan would cut diplomatic relations.

PM Netanyahu at first refused but he later agreed to send the antidote and the head of Mossad flew to Amman with it

ChuckOrloski , says: September 12, 2019 at 7:10 pm GMT
@Been_there_done_that Hello, Been_there_done_that,

Respectful of your presumed experience, I am unclear with your mental mechanics upon which you concluded that, "They were there to do more than take some pictures and celebrate, more importantly to stage another spectacular event, namely to set off their van, filled with explosives, at the middle of the Washington Bridge ,"

So to reiterate my point, I believe the "dancing Israelis" were Mossad pros, who had they any concern/fears for getting caught & charged with having extremely suspicious 9/11 foreknowledge, they would not have ritually celebrated & danced in public view.

Point taken: Indeed, the weird "dancing Israelis" might have been Jewish "amateur dancers," haha, but in no way were they amateur Mossad men.

Thanks and 'dat 'gonna be my done 'dat respect, Been_there_done_that!

Alden , says: September 12, 2019 at 7:28 pm GMT
@Bardon Kaldian The dancing Israelis were only caught because one of the thousands watching the destruction of the towers had binoculars and caught them. It's often tiny things like that that catch criminals spies whatever.

Serial killer Son of Sam was caught because one of the detectives thought to check all parking tickets issued in each neighborhood around the time of the murder. He reasoned that the killer didn't live in the neighborhoods where he killed and had to park in the street. Sure enough the killer got a parking ticket near the site of the killing right date right time.

Russian spy Colonel Abel was caught because he used fake quarters and nickels to conceal his microdot information. The coins had too and bottom sections that unscrewed. He had his newspaper delivered. One day he paid the paper boy using one of the 2 piece nickels. The boy noticed. He showed it to his Dad who notified the FBI.

Had Abel bought his paper from a store or newsstand it would have been difficult or impossible to trace. But paperboys know their customers.

Jonathan Pollard was caught because he spent so much time away from his desk working for Israel he didn't get any work done. So his supervisor decided to fire him.

Government employees aren't at will. They can only be fired for cause. So the supervisor set about documenting causes to fire Pollard. That investigation led to the supervisor's discovery Pollard was working for Israel.

Had Pollard worked for an at will government contractor he might have been fired, but he wouldn't have been caught. It was only the for cause investigation that caught him.

The dancing Israelis were caught because one woman used binoculars.

niceland , says: September 12, 2019 at 7:32 pm GMT
They didn't manage to keep, high profile criminal, Jeffrey Epstein alive. The prime witness to alleged crimes of many others and the key to bring them to justice. Keeping Epstein alive was too difficult for the nation that sent men on the moon half a century ago, and spends billions of dollars each year on intelligence.

Now, after FOIA request made by a private citizen the FBI releases few of the photos in very bad quality and heavily redacted. Basically worthless. Is there any reasoning behind this as to why so few, so bad and so redacted or is this just to show the FBI is beyond and above and does what it pleases. TPTB are just mocking us. The message is clear.

It's best to forget 9/11. They want us to remember it. Let's rather remember what happened after, there are no mysteries about that story. We even know part of it was written before 9/11. And the results speak for themselves; hundreds of thousands killed and millions on the run, trillions wasted. A crime much worse than 9/11 ever was – and we, more or less, know the culprits.

[Sep 12, 2019] While the case of the Dancing Israelis has long been treated as an outlier in the aftermath of September 11, what is often overlooked is the fact that hundreds of Israeli nationals were arrested in the aftermath of the attacks.

Sep 12, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com

Lumberjack , 1 hour ago link

This is new:

https://www.mintpressnews.com/newly-released-fbi-docs-shed-light-on-apparent-mossad-foreknowledge-of-9-11-attacks/258581/

A crowded dance floor

While the case of the “Dancing Israelis” has long been treated as an outlier in the aftermath of September 11, what is often overlooked is the fact that hundreds of Israeli nationals were arrested in the aftermath of the attacks.

According to a FOX News report from December 2001, 60 Israelis were apprehended or detained after September 11, with most deported, and a total of 140 Israelis were arrested and detained in all of 2001 by federal authorities. That report claimed that the arrests, ostensibly including the “Dancing Israelis,” were in relation to an investigation of “an organized [Israeli] intelligence gathering operation designed to ‘penetrate government facilities.’”

The report also added that most of those arrested, in addition to having served in the IDF, had “intelligence expertise” and worked for Israeli companies that specialized in wiretapping. Some of those detained were also active members of the Israeli military; and several detainees, including the “Dancing Israelis,” had failed polygraph tests when asked if they had been surveilling the U.S. government.

Lumberjack , 45 minutes ago link

More:

note the head of urban moving systems fled to Israel on Sept. 14, when all airspace was shut down over CONUS., Did he cross the border into Canada to flee?

The FBI presence at the Urban Moving Systems search site drew the attention of the local media and was later reported on both television and in the local press. A former Urban Moving Systems employee later contacted the Newark Division with information indicating that he had quit his employment with Urban Moving Systems as a result of the high amount of anti-American sentiment present among Urban’s employees. The former employee stated that an Israeli employee of Urban had even once remarked, “Give us twenty years and we’ll take over your media and destroy your country” (page 37 of the FBI report ).

The FBI returned to search the premises of Urban Moving Systems a month later, but by that time found:

The building and all of its contents had been abandoned by…the owner of Urban Moving Systems. This [was] apparently being done to avoid criminal prosecution after the 09/11/2001 arrest of five of his employees and subsequent seizure of his office computer systems by members of the FBI-NK on or around 09/13/2001.”

The company’s owner — Dominik Otto Suter, an Israeli citizen — had fled to Israel on September 14, 2001, two days after he had been questioned by the FBI. The FBI told ABC News that “Urban Moving may have been providing cover for an Israeli intelligence operation.” Surprisingly, since at least 2016, Suter has been living in the San Francisco Bay Area, where he works for a contractor for major tech companies like Google and Microsoft. According to the public records database Intelius, in 2006 and 2007 Suter also worked for a telecommunications company — Granite Telecommunications — that works for the U.S. military and several other U.S. government agencies.

Lumberjack , 36 minutes ago link

Clip on the "5 Dancing Israelis"

https://mobile.twitter.com/zogistani99/status/907121866317467648

Barry Madingo-Odongo , 1 hour ago link

They did it. And if the American people do understand that, israel's going to disappear. israel will flat-*** disappear from this Earth.
- Dr. Alan Sabrosky

[Sep 11, 2019] Video Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 The Bamboozle Has Captured Us

Highly recommended!
David Warner Mathisen definitely know what he is talking about due to his long military career... Free fall speed is documented and is an embarrassment to the official story, because free fall is impossible for a naturally collapsing building.
Now we need to dig into the role of Larry Silverstein in the Building 7 collapse.
Notable quotes:
"... Below is a video showing several film sequences taken from different locations and documenting multiple angles of World Trade Center Building 7 collapsing at freefall speed eighteen years ago on September 11, 2001. ..."
"... The four words "Building Seven Freefall Speed" provide all the evidence needed to conclude that the so-called "official narrative" promoted by the mainstream media for the past eighteen years is a lie, as is the fraudulent 9/11 Commission Report of 2004. ..."
"... Earlier this month, a team of engineers at the University of Alaska published their draft findings from a five-year investigation into the collapse of Building 7 ..."
"... This damning report by a team of university engineers has received no attention from the mainstream media outlets which continue to promote the bankrupt "official" narrative of the events of September 11, 2001. ..."
"... its rate of collapse can be measured and found to be indistinguishable from freefall speed, as physics teacher David Chandler explains in an interview here (and as he eventually forced NIST to admit), beginning at around 0:43:00 in the interview. ..."
"... the collapse of the 47-story steel-beam building World Trade Center 7 into its own footprint at freefall speed is all the evidence needed to reveal extensive and deliberate premeditated criminal activity by powerful forces that had the ability to prepare pre-positioned demolition charges in that building ..."
"... Indeed, the evidence is overwhelming, to the point that no one can any longer be excused for accepting the official story. Certainly during the first few days and weeks after the attacks, or even during the first few years, men and women could be excused for accepting the official story (particularly given the level to which the mainstream media controls opinion in the united states). ..."
"... Additionally, I would also recommend the interviews which are archived at the website of Visibility 9-11 , which includes valuable interviews with Kevin Ryan but also numerous important interviews with former military officers who explain that the failure of the military to scramble fighters to intercept the hijacked airplanes, and the failure of air defense weapons to stop a jet from hitting the Pentagon (if indeed a jet did hit the Pentagon), are also completely inexplicable to anyone who knows anything at all about military operations, unless the official story is completely false and something else was going on that day. ..."
"... In addition to these interviews and the Dig Within blog of Kevin Ryan, I would also strongly recommend everybody read the article by Dr. Gary G. Kohls entitled " Why Do Good People Become Silent About the Documented Facts that Disprove the Official 9/11 Narrative? " which was published on Global Research a few days ago, on September 6, 2019. ..."
"... on some level, we already know we have been bamboozled, even if our conscious mind refuses to accept what we already know. ..."
"... Previous posts have compared this tendency of the egoic mind to the blissfully ignorant character of Michael Scott in the television series The Office (US version): see here for example, and also here . ..."
"... The imposition of a vast surveillance mechanism upon the people of this country (and of other countries) based on the fraudulent pretext of "preventing terrorism" (and the lying narrative that has been perpetuated with the full complicity of the mainstream media for the past eighteen years) is in complete violation of the human rights which are enumerated in the Bill of Rights and which declare: ..."
"... David Warner Mathisen graduated from the US Military Academy at West Point and became an Infantry officer in the 82nd Airborne Division and the 4th Infantry Division. He is a graduate of the US Army's Ranger School and the 82nd Airborne Division's Jumpmaster Course, among many other awards and decorations. He was later selected to become an instructor in the Department of English Literature and Philosophy at West Point and has a Masters degree from Texas A&M University. ..."
Sep 11, 2019 | www.globalresearch.ca

Below is a video showing several film sequences taken from different locations and documenting multiple angles of World Trade Center Building 7 collapsing at freefall speed eighteen years ago on September 11, 2001.

The four words "Building Seven Freefall Speed" provide all the evidence needed to conclude that the so-called "official narrative" promoted by the mainstream media for the past eighteen years is a lie, as is the fraudulent 9/11 Commission Report of 2004.

  1. Building.
  2. Seven.
  3. Freefall.
  4. Speed.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/Mamvq7LWqRU

Earlier this month, a team of engineers at the University of Alaska published their draft findings from a five-year investigation into the collapse of Building 7, which was not hit by any airplane on September 11, 2001, and concluded that fires could not possibly have caused the collapse of that 47-story steel-frame building -- rather, the collapse seen could have only been caused by the near-simultaneous failure of every support column (43 in number).

This damning report by a team of university engineers has received no attention from the mainstream media outlets which continue to promote the bankrupt "official" narrative of the events of September 11, 2001.

Various individuals at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) tried to argue that the collapse of Building 7 was slower than freefall speed, but its rate of collapse can be measured and found to be indistinguishable from freefall speed, as physics teacher David Chandler explains in an interview here (and as he eventually forced NIST to admit), beginning at around 0:43:00 in the interview.

Although the collapse of the 47-story steel-beam building World Trade Center 7 into its own footprint at freefall speed is all the evidence needed to reveal extensive and deliberate premeditated criminal activity by powerful forces that had the ability to prepare pre-positioned demolition charges in that building prior to the flight of the aircraft into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center (Buildings One and Two), as well as the power to cover up the evidence of this criminal activity and to deflect questioning by government agencies and suppress the story in the mainstream news, the collapse of Building 7 is by no means the only evidence which points to the same conclusion.

Indeed, the evidence is overwhelming, to the point that no one can any longer be excused for accepting the official story. Certainly during the first few days and weeks after the attacks, or even during the first few years, men and women could be excused for accepting the official story (particularly given the level to which the mainstream media controls opinion in the united states).

However, eighteen years later there is simply no excuse anymore -- except for the fact that the ramifications of the admission that the official story is a flagrant fraud and a lie are so distressing that many people cannot actually bring themselves to consciously admit what they in fact already know subconsciously.

For additional evidence, I strongly recommend the work of the indefatigable Kevin Robert Ryan , whose blog at Dig Within should be required reading for every man and woman in the united states -- as well as those in the rest of the world, since the ramifications of the murders of innocent men, women and children on September 11, 2001 have led to the murders of literally millions of other innocent men, women and children around the world since that day, and the consequences of the failure to absorb the truth of what actually took place, and the consequences of the failure to address the lies that are built upon the fraudulent explanation of what took place on September 11, continue to negatively impact men and women everywhere on our planet.

Additionally, I would also recommend the interviews which are archived at the website of Visibility 9-11 , which includes valuable interviews with Kevin Ryan but also numerous important interviews with former military officers who explain that the failure of the military to scramble fighters to intercept the hijacked airplanes, and the failure of air defense weapons to stop a jet from hitting the Pentagon (if indeed a jet did hit the Pentagon), are also completely inexplicable to anyone who knows anything at all about military operations, unless the official story is completely false and something else was going on that day.

I would also strongly recommend listening very carefully to the series of five interviews with Kevin Ryan on Guns and Butter with Bonnie Faulkner, which can be found in the Guns and Butter podcast archive here . These interviews, from 2013, are numbered 287, 288, 289, 290, and 291 in the archive.

Selected Articles: 9/11: Do You Still Believe that Al Qaeda Masterminded the Attacks?

I would in fact recommend listening to nearly every interview in that archive of Bonnie Faulkner's show, even though I do not of course agree with every single guest nor with every single view expressed in every single interview. Indeed, if you carefully read Kevin Ryan's blog which was linked above, you will find a blog post by Kevin Ryan dated June 24, 2018 in which he explicitly names James Fetzer along with Judy Woods as likely disinformation agents working to discredit and divert the efforts of 9/11 researchers. James Fetzer appears on Guns and Butter several times in the archived interview page linked above.

In addition to these interviews and the Dig Within blog of Kevin Ryan, I would also strongly recommend everybody read the article by Dr. Gary G. Kohls entitled " Why Do Good People Become Silent About the Documented Facts that Disprove the Official 9/11 Narrative? " which was published on Global Research a few days ago, on September 6, 2019.

That article contains a number of stunning quotations about the ongoing failure to address the now-obvious lies we are being told about the attacks of September 11. One of these quotations, by astronomer Carl Sagan (1934 – 1996), is particularly noteworthy -- even though I certainly do not agree with everything Carl Sagan ever said or wrote. Regarding our propensity to refuse to acknowledge what we already know deep down to be true, Carl Sagan said:

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It's simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we've been taken.

This quotation is from Sagan's 1995 text, The Demon-Haunted World (with which I have points of disagreement, but which is extremely valuable for that quotation alone, and which I might suggest turning around on some of the points that Sagan was arguing as well, as a cautionary warning to those who have accepted too wholeheartedly some of Sagan's teachings and opinions).

This quotation shows that on some level, we already know we have been bamboozled, even if our conscious mind refuses to accept what we already know. This internal division is actually addressed in the world's ancient myths, which consistently illustrate that our egoic mind often refuses to acknowledge the higher wisdom we have available to us through the reality of our authentic self, sometimes called our Higher Self. Previous posts have compared this tendency of the egoic mind to the blissfully ignorant character of Michael Scott in the television series The Office (US version): see here for example, and also here .

The important author Peter Kingsley has noted that in ancient myth, the role of the prophet was to bring awareness and acknowledgement of that which the egoic mind refuses to see -- which is consistent with the observation that it is through our authentic self (which already knows) that we have access to the realm of the gods. In the Iliad, for example, Dr. Kingsley notes that Apollo sends disaster upon the Achaean forces until the prophet Calchas reveals the source of the god's anger: Agamemnon's refusal to free the young woman Chryseis, whom Agamemnon has seized in the course of the fighting during the Trojan War, and who is the daughter of a priest of Apollo. Until Agamemnon atones for this insult to the god, Apollo will continue to visit destruction upon those following Agamemnon.

Until we acknowledge and correct what our Higher Self already knows to be the problem, we ourselves will be out of step with the divine realm.

If we look the other way at the murder of thousands of innocent men, women and children on September 11, 2001, and deliberately refuse to see the truth that we already know deep down in our subconscious, then we will face the displeasure of the Invisible Realm. Just as we are shown in the ancient myths, the truth must be acknowledged and admitted, and then the wrong that has been done must be corrected.

In the case of the mass murder perpetrated on September 11, eighteen years ago, that admission requires us to face the fact that the "terrorists" who were blamed for that attack were not the actual terrorists that we need to be focusing on.

Please note that I am very careful not to say that "the government" is the source of the problem: I would argue that the government is the lawful expression of the will of the people and that the government, rightly understood, is exactly what these criminal perpetrators actually fear the most, if the people ever become aware of what is going on. The government, which is established by the Constitution, forbids the perpetration of murder upon innocent men, women and children in order to initiate wars of aggression against countries that never invaded or attacked us (under the false pretense that they did so). Those who do so are actually opposed to our government under the Constitution and can be dealt with within the framework of the law as established by the Constitution, which establishes a very clear penalty for treason.

When the people acknowledge and admit the complete bankruptcy of the lie we have been told about the attacks of September 11, the correction of that lie will involve demanding the immediate repeal and dismantling of the so-called "USA PATRIOT Act" which was enacted in the weeks immediately following September 11, 2001 and which clearly violates the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Additionally, the correction of that lie will involve demanding the immediate cessation of the military operations which were initiated based upon the fraudulent narrative of the attacks of that day, and which have led to invasion and overthrow of the nations that were falsely blamed as being the perpetrators of those attacks and the seizure of their natural resources.

The imposition of a vast surveillance mechanism upon the people of this country (and of other countries) based on the fraudulent pretext of "preventing terrorism" (and the lying narrative that has been perpetuated with the full complicity of the mainstream media for the past eighteen years) is in complete violation of the human rights which are enumerated in the Bill of Rights and which declare:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

That human right has been grievously trampled upon under the false description of what actually took place during the September 11 attacks. Numerous technology companies have been allowed and even encouraged (and paid, with public moneys) to create technologies which flagrantly and shamelessly violate "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" and which track their every move and even enable secret eavesdropping upon their conversation and the secret capture of video within their homes and private settings, without any probable cause whatsoever.

When we admit and acknowledge that we have been lied to about the events of September 11, which has been falsely used as a supposed justification for the violation of these human rights (with complete disregard for the supreme law of the land as established in the Constitution), then we will also demand the immediate cessation of any such intrusion upon the right of the people to "be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" -- including the cessation of any business models which involve spying on men and women.

Companies which cannot find a business model that does not violate the Bill of Rights should lose their corporate charter and the privilege of limited liability, which are extended to them by the people (through the government of the people, by the people and for the people) only upon the condition that their behavior as corporations do not violate the inherent rights of men and women as acknowledged in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.

It is well beyond the time when we must acknowledge and admit that we have been lied to about the events of September 11, 2001 -- and that we continue to be lied to about the events of that awful day. September 11, 2001 is in fact only one such event in a long history which stretches back prior to 2001, to other events which should have awakened the people to the presence of a very powerful and very dangerous criminal cabal acting in direct contravention to the Constitution long before we ever got to 2001 -- but the events of September 11 are so blatant, so violent, and so full of evidence which contradicts the fraudulent narrative that they actually cannot be believed by anyone who spends even the slightest amount of time looking at that evidence.

Indeed, we already know deep down that we have been bamboozled by the lie of the so-called "official narrative" of September 11.

But until we admit to ourselves and acknowledge to others that we've ignored the truth that we already know, then the bamboozle still has us .

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

David Warner Mathisen graduated from the US Military Academy at West Point and became an Infantry officer in the 82nd Airborne Division and the 4th Infantry Division. He is a graduate of the US Army's Ranger School and the 82nd Airborne Division's Jumpmaster Course, among many other awards and decorations. He was later selected to become an instructor in the Department of English Literature and Philosophy at West Point and has a Masters degree from Texas A&M University.

The original source of this article is Global Research Copyright © David W. Mathisen , Global Research, 2019 Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

David Warner Mathisen graduated from the US Military Academy at West Point and became an Infantry officer in the 82nd Airborne Division and the 4th Infantry Division. He is a graduate of the US Army's Ranger School and the 82nd Airborne Division's Jumpmaster Course, among many other awards and decorations. He was later selected to become an instructor in the Department of English Literature and Philosophy at West Point and has a Masters degree from Texas A&M University.

[Sep 11, 2019] Building 7 as smoking gun for 9/11

If fire caused Building 7 to collapse, it would be the first ever fire-induced collapse of a steel-frame high-rise.
Sep 11, 2019 | www.youtube.com

[Sep 09, 2019] The Corbett report video on WTC7

Notable quotes:
"... Thanks for posting the Corbett report video on WTC7. I had seen the Barry Jennings interview before, but had not read it in detail for many, many years. It is very significant, just as is the way the official narrative has ignored it. ..."
"... Also, this morning, Sputnik news has picked up on the UAF WTC7 report. The word is spreading, slowly, although in this case the authorities will probably just blame in on Putin causing trouble. I still have not seen a mainstream news outlet pick it up yet though. Maybe this will change on Sept. 11th. Or maybe they will just pretend it doesn't exist. ..."
"... The most fascinating aspect of 9/11 is the speed with which the Cheney Gang decided that a large scale military response was the only 'logical' option. ..."
"... Professor Hulsey did a presentation this week to accompany the draft UAF report. A youtube of the slides, with audio, is attached. For those that are serious about critiquing the report, I strongly recommend that you listen to the presentation, as well as (please) read the report carefully. ..."
"... On September 3rd, the University of Alaska Fairbanks released a study on their analysis of the infamous Twin Towers collapse. In it, they found that the third tower's collapse was, "caused not by fire but rather by the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building." ..."
"... remember watching a video of multiple interviews with first responders and was gobsmacked at their tale. Only a controlled demolition will achieve the sight of that collapse. Simultaneous controlled demolition. That collapse could not have the observed uniformity when an isolated fire is concentrated in one corner. ..."
"... Now of course we have additional facts, that there were important records of an ongoing financial investigation there, it was a CIA office, also the NYC gov't under Mayor Giuliani (remember him) had it as the emergency command center, luckily moved that day to a temporary one out on the piers due to some military exercise or something. ..."
"... Finally to any honest skeptics out there who are unsure about the whole September 11th 2001 thing -- there's a lot of fake "9/11" stuff out there too about nuclear bombs, beam weapons, all kinds of nonsense put out to distract us from the reality that those three buildings, and the Pentagon too, were deliberately set up to destroy evidence and scare everyone into a panic so things could change politically. ..."
"... If you look at what's happened in the US and the world, things changed for the worse after the 2001 event. It must have taken years to plan and execute this criminal hoax. One of many I'm sure. ..."
Sep 09, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org

ADKC , Sep 8 2019 14:58 utc | 2

Latest video from The Corbett Report, relating to WTC 7:

The Corbett Report - 9/11 Whistleblowers: Barry Jennings

retiredmecheng , Sep 8 2019 16:03 utc | 11

@AKDC @2

Thanks for posting the Corbett report video on WTC7. I had seen the Barry Jennings interview before, but had not read it in detail for many, many years. It is very significant, just as is the way the official narrative has ignored it.

Also, this morning, Sputnik news has picked up on the UAF WTC7 report. The word is spreading, slowly, although in this case the authorities will probably just blame in on Putin causing trouble. I still have not seen a mainstream news outlet pick it up yet though. Maybe this will change on Sept. 11th. Or maybe they will just pretend it doesn't exist.

Also, just for continuity, the UAF WTC7 report was discussed extensively on last week's open thread, starting at comment #131. I have really enjoyed being part of the discussion. And as Jackrabbit said so eloquently in his post, there are so many other aspects of the official 9/11 narrative that "stink", that it is hard to know where to start when performing a critique.

Sputnik WTC7 Coverage of UAF Report

Walter , Sep 8 2019 16:22 utc | 17
see 9/11 Trillions: Follow the Money (2015) at Corbett

also

Episode 346 – 9/11 War Games (Corbett)

His Oklahoma investigation also> and an interesting evaluation of T McVeigh's - strange life, which may continue (he says) - that dovetails to the Epstein "suicide"...which may also have been a jailbreak.

Like I said - it's a Big Global Picture, and disturbing.

Zack , Sep 9 2019 4:40 utc | 83
Had read somewhere awhile back that the WTC towers had to have some sort of demolition plan built into them from the beginning in case one started to tip over onto other buildings and/or for whenever they needed to be demolished.

Instead of having to rig up the whole building for destruction wouldn't it be easier just to put the building into an unsafe condition that triggers the buildings own self destruction mechanism?

Could the towers have come down perfectly because they were designed to go down like that from the beginning?

Think about Larry Silverman's "pull it" statement...

Hoarsewhisperer , Sep 9 2019 5:02 utc | 86
The most fascinating aspect of 9/11 is the speed with which the Cheney Gang decided that a large scale military response was the only 'logical' option.
ted01 , Sep 9 2019 5:04 utc | 87
Nicholas Negroponte - brother of John Negroponte - war criminal, facilitator of right wing paramilitary death squads & supporter of your 80's style Central American military dictator. As Reagan's man in Honduras, that country became the headquarters for the Contras in their bloody campaign against the people of Nicaragua. This is only a small part of what this shitstain has inflicted on the world.

A true American hero - I very much doubt that young Nicholas is much different.

retiredmecheng , Sep 9 2019 6:16 utc | 94
@Peter AU1 @92

This is my second attempt at this post. The first one disappeared. Apologies if it shows as a duplicate.

Professor Hulsey did a presentation this week to accompany the draft UAF report. A youtube of the slides, with audio, is attached. For those that are serious about critiquing the report, I strongly recommend that you listen to the presentation, as well as (please) read the report carefully.

Let me know if the link doesn't work.

Hulsey WTC7 Presentation

Martin , Sep 9 2019 9:57 utc | 103
On September 3rd, the University of Alaska Fairbanks released a study on their analysis of the infamous Twin Towers collapse. In it, they found that the third tower's collapse was, "caused not by fire but rather by the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building."

https://www.wakingtimes.com/2019/09/04/university-of-alaska-study-definitively-concludes-fire-did-not-cause-building-7-collapse-on-9-11/

uncle tungsten , Sep 9 2019 10:48 utc | 104
Thank you retiredmecheng #95. That was an excellent video presentation. NIST response will be interesting. We have waited a while for this panel to present their response to NIST and the wait was worth it. There must have been some mighty important reason to drop that building and to prevent any access to the two burning floors.

I remember watching a video of multiple interviews with first responders and was gobsmacked at their tale. Only a controlled demolition will achieve the sight of that collapse. Simultaneous controlled demolition. That collapse could not have the observed uniformity when an isolated fire is concentrated in one corner.

jonku , Sep 9 2019 17:06 utc | 114
retiredmecheng | Sep 9 2019 6:16 utc | 94

Thanks for your considered and clear explanations re: WTC 7 and its demise.

I agree that it seems undeniable that the building did not "fall down" due to a fire ... at the time I assumed that they had filled it with explosives during the day, so that it could be demolished later. Was unsure of the why, but in the moment it was entirely clear that the building was deliberately destroyed.

Now of course we have additional facts, that there were important records of an ongoing financial investigation there, it was a CIA office, also the NYC gov't under Mayor Giuliani (remember him) had it as the emergency command center, luckily moved that day to a temporary one out on the piers due to some military exercise or something.

Anyone with two brain cells can see that two planes can't take down three buildings.

Finally to any honest skeptics out there who are unsure about the whole September 11th 2001 thing -- there's a lot of fake "9/11" stuff out there too about nuclear bombs, beam weapons, all kinds of nonsense put out to distract us from the reality that those three buildings, and the Pentagon too, were deliberately set up to destroy evidence and scare everyone into a panic so things could change politically.

If you look at what's happened in the US and the world, things changed for the worse after the 2001 event. It must have taken years to plan and execute this criminal hoax. One of many I'm sure.

[Sep 07, 2019] Newly Released FBI Docs Shed Light on Apparent Mossad Foreknowledge of 9/11 Attacks by Whitney Webb

Notable quotes:
"... Shortly after 8:46 a.m. on the day of the attacks, just minutes after the first plane struck the World Trade Center, five men -- later revealed to be Israeli nationals -- had positioned themselves in the parking lot of the Doric Apartment Complex in Union City, New Jersey ..."
"... At least one eyewitness interviewed by the FBI had seen the Israelis' van in the parking lot as early as 8:00 a.m. that day, more than 40 minutes prior to the attack. ..."
"... The men -- Sivan Kurzberg, Paul Kurzberg, Oded Ellner, Yaron Shimuel and Omar Marmari -- were subsequently apprehended by law enforcement and claimed to be Israeli tourists on a "working holiday" in the United States where they were employed by a moving company, Urban Moving Systems. Upon his arrest, Sivan Kurzberg told the arresting officer, "We are Israeli; we are not your problem. Your problems are our problems, The Palestinians are the problem." ..."
"... newly released FBI copies of the photos taken by the five Israelis strongly suggest that these individuals had prior knowledge of the attacks on the World Trade Center. The copies of the photos were obtained via a FOIA request made by a private citizen . ..."
"... In addition, the FBI report noted that a van from Urban Moving Systems, the company that employed the five Israelis at the time of their arrest, was present and was involved in moving a tenant out of the complex on September 10 and that the movers all had foreign accents. Thus, images 5, 7 and 8 strongly appear to have been taken at the same complex a day before the attacks. Kurzberg is seen in both images that display the visible date of September 10, 2001. ..."
"... A cover-up certainly seems to have happened to some extent, between the destruction of records of the investigation and the fact that official conclusions of the investigation do not add up. In the latter case, the FBI -- in a file dated September 24, 2001– officially stated that they "determined that none of the Israelis were actively engaged in clandestine intelligence activities in the United States." However, that conclusion was directly contradicted by U.S. officials a year later and by the fact that Israel's own government subsequently acknowledged that the five Israelis had indeed been involved in "clandestine intelligence activities in the United States." ..."
"... the van in which the Israelis were arrested was "oddly" lacking "equipment typically used in a moving company's daily duties," according to the FBI, and residue of explosives was found in the van. ..."
"... In total, the FBI reported that four items related to explosives were found in the ban and are labeled in the report as "Fabric Sample (Explosive Residue)," "Control Swabs – SA [ – ] Gloves," "Control Swabs – (Bomb Suits)," and "Blanket Samples For Explosive Residue." In addition, a VHS tape and some still photographs found in the van "were sent to Laboratory Examiner [ redacted ] (Explosives Unit)." ..."
"... In addition to the strange nature of some of the Israelis' possessions in the van and on their person, the company that employed them -- Urban Moving Systems -- was of special interest to the FBI, which concluded that the company was likely a "fraudulent operation." Upon a search of the company's premises, the FBI noted that "little evidence of a legitimate business operation was found." ..."
"... The FBI report also noted that there were an "unusually large number of computers relative to the number of employees for such a fairly small business" and that "further investigation identified several pseudo-names or aliases associated with Urban Moving Systems and its operations." ..."
May 17, 2019 | www.mintpressnews.com

264 Comments

NEW YORK -- For nearly two decades, one of the most overlooked and little known arrests made in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks was that of the so-called "High Fivers," or the "Dancing Israelis." However, new information released by the FBI on May 7 has brought fresh scrutiny to the possibility that the "Dancing Israelis," at least two of whom were known Mossad operatives, had prior knowledge of the attacks on the World Trade Center.

Shortly after 8:46 a.m. on the day of the attacks, just minutes after the first plane struck the World Trade Center, five men -- later revealed to be Israeli nationals -- had positioned themselves in the parking lot of the Doric Apartment Complex in Union City, New Jersey, where they were seen taking pictures and filming the attacks while also celebrating the destruction of the towers and "high fiving" each other. At least one eyewitness interviewed by the FBI had seen the Israelis' van in the parking lot as early as 8:00 a.m. that day, more than 40 minutes prior to the attack. The story received coverage in U.S. mainstream media at the time but has since been largely forgotten.

The men -- Sivan Kurzberg, Paul Kurzberg, Oded Ellner, Yaron Shimuel and Omar Marmari -- were subsequently apprehended by law enforcement and claimed to be Israeli tourists on a "working holiday" in the United States where they were employed by a moving company, Urban Moving Systems. Upon his arrest, Sivan Kurzberg told the arresting officer, "We are Israeli; we are not your problem. Your problems are our problems, The Palestinians are the problem."

For years, the official story has been that these individuals, while they had engaged in "immature" behavior by celebrating and being "visibly happy" in their documenting of the attacks, had no prior knowledge of the attack. However, newly released FBI copies of the photos taken by the five Israelis strongly suggest that these individuals had prior knowledge of the attacks on the World Trade Center. The copies of the photos were obtained via a FOIA request made by a private citizen .

According to a former high-ranking American intelligence official who spoke to the Jewish Daily Forward in 2002, the FBI concluded in its investigation that the five Israelis arrested "were conducting a Mossad surveillance mission and that their employer, Urban Moving Systems of Weehawken, NJ, served as a front." At least two of the men arrested were determined to have direct links to the Mossad after their names appeared in a CIA-FBI database of foreign intelligence operatives. According to one of their lawyers, one of the men, Paul Kurzberg, had previously worked for the Mossad in another country prior to arriving in the United States. Another of those arrested, Oded Ellner, subsequently stated on Israeli TV that the five Israelis had been in New York at the time "to document the event," meaning the attack on the World Trade Center.

The FOIA release of the photos is notable because responses to prior FOIA requests to the Department of Justice, which oversees the FBI, had previously claimed that all of the photos taken by the Israeli nationals had been destroyed in January 2014. The photos themselves are heavily redacted, making it impossible to see the Israelis' facial expressions. However, previously declassified yet heavily redacted FBI reports state that the Israelis are "visibly happy" in nearly every photo, even when the burning towers are in the background. The photos released are also not original copies and instead appear to be photocopies of photocopies of the original pictures. In addition, of the original 76 pictures developed by authorities from the camera in the Israelis' possession, only 14 were released.

https://www.scribd.com/embeds/409691150/content?start_page=1&view_mode=scroll&show_recommendations=false&access_key=key-3vUx4M43wfUpwpwYtsDC

However, three of these photos -- despite the heavy redaction and poor quality -- are damning. Since 2001, even though the photos were never released until now, it had been known that one of the Israelis arrested -- Sivan Kurzberg -- was seen in a photo "holding a lighted lighter in the foreground, with the smoldering wreckage [of the twin towers] in the background," according to Steven Noah Gordon, then-lawyer for the five Israelis, as cited in a New York Times report from November 2001.

The picture of Kurzberg with the lit lighter appears to be photo #5 in the new FOIA release. Yet, the picture released includes a visible date of September 10, 2001, the day before the attacks, as do two other photos -- images #7 and #8 in the collection -- whereas all other photos with dates show only the month and the year (9 '01). The FOIA release did not provide any information as to the apparent discrepancy in dates.

While this could be explained away as the camera in question being programmed with a slightly inaccurate date, that doesn't seem to be the case for two reasons. First, only two out of the 14 pictures carry that date and, second, previously declassified FBI reports report an eyewitness adamantly stating that Sivan Kurzberg had visited the Doric Apartments on September 10, 2001 at around 3 p.m. with at least one other man, with whom he was conversing in a foreign language, and had identified himself as a "construction worker" to a tenant (page 61 of declassified FBI report ).

Sivan Kurzberg holds a lit lighter with the Manhattan skyline in the background. The date September 10, 2001 visible in the bottom right corner | Photo #5

In addition, the FBI report noted that a van from Urban Moving Systems, the company that employed the five Israelis at the time of their arrest, was present and was involved in moving a tenant out of the complex on September 10 and that the movers all had foreign accents. Thus, images 5, 7 and 8 strongly appear to have been taken at the same complex a day before the attacks. Kurzberg is seen in both images that display the visible date of September 10, 2001.

This raises two possibilities. First, that there are two images of Kurzberg with a lit lighter in front of the towers, one taken before the attack and one taken at the time of the attack, and that the FBI released only one of them. Second, that Kurzberg took the picture with the lighter only the day before the attack and his lawyer misrepresented the contents of the photo to the New York Times. Given that the background of the photo -- particularly the state of the towers -- is indiscernible in the recently released photo, it is difficult to determine which is the case.

One of the Israelis points to what is presumably the World Trade Center, in Manhattan on September 11, 2001 | Photo #2

Yet, in either scenario, Kurzberg had simulated the burning of the World Trade Center the day before the attacks took place. That the FBI concluded that Kurzberg was party to a Mossad surveillance operation at the time of his arrest would then suggest that Israeli intelligence also had foreknowledge of the attacks.

Notably, the relevant section of the FBI report that asks "1. Did the Israeli nationals have foreknowledge of the events at WTC and were they filming the events prior to and in anticipation of the explosion?" is redacted in its entirety, suggesting that the FBI did not determine the answer to that question to be an emphatic "no."

One of the 9/11 loose-ends coverups?

If images 5 and 7 were indeed taken the day prior to the attack, the question then becomes why the FBI officially concluded that the arrested Israelis had no prior knowledge of the attacks? One report from ABC News dated June 2002 suggests that the Bush administration intervened in the investigation. That report states that "Israeli and U.S. government officials worked out a deal -- and after 71 days, the five Israelis were taken out of jail, put on a plane, and deported back home [to Israel]." If the Bush administration had cut a deal with Israel's government to cover up the incident, it certainly would not have been the first time a U.S. presidential administration had done so on Israel's behalf.

Further evidence that higher-ups in the administration intervened is the fact that then-Attorney General John Ashcroft personally signed off on the detainees' release. Upon his entering the private sector as a lobbyist and consultant in 2005, the Israeli government became one of Ashcroft's first clients .

A cover-up certainly seems to have happened to some extent, between the destruction of records of the investigation and the fact that official conclusions of the investigation do not add up. In the latter case, the FBI -- in a file dated September 24, 2001– officially stated that they "determined that none of the Israelis were actively engaged in clandestine intelligence activities in the United States." However, that conclusion was directly contradicted by U.S. officials a year later and by the fact that Israel's own government subsequently acknowledged that the five Israelis had indeed been involved in "clandestine intelligence activities in the United States."

In addition, the new FOIA release of the photos suggests that another FBI conclusion -- that "none of the pictures developed from the film found inside the 35-mm camera depicted the twin towers prior to the attack" -- was inaccurate. This may explain why the images released via the recent FOIA request were heavily edited leaving details in the background greatly obscured, making it impossible to determine whether the photos were taken prior to or during the attacks based solely on the state of the towers.

"Tourists" with cash-stuffed socks, box cutters, and explosives?

Beyond the photos and observed activities of the so-called "Dancing Israelis," it is worth revisiting several other suspicious circumstances linked to their arrest that clearly show that the men in question were hardly the "tourists" they had claimed to be. One often cited example is the fact that one of the men, Oded Ellner, had a "white sock-like sack filled with $4,700 in cash ," as well as maps of the city with certain places highlighted, and box cutters. In addition, the van in which the Israelis were arrested was "oddly" lacking "equipment typically used in a moving company's daily duties," according to the FBI, and residue of explosives was found in the van.

Of the explosive residue, the declassified FBI report states:

A search of the van and individuals was conducted at the time of the vehicle stop. The vehicle was also searched by a trained bomb-sniffing dog which yielded a positive result for the presence of explosive traces. Swabs of the vehicle's interior were taken, and those samples were sent to the FBI laboratory for further analysis. Final results are still pending."

In total, the FBI reported that four items related to explosives were found in the ban and are labeled in the report as "Fabric Sample (Explosive Residue)," "Control Swabs – SA [ – ] Gloves," "Control Swabs – (Bomb Suits)," and "Blanket Samples For Explosive Residue." In addition, a VHS tape and some still photographs found in the van "were sent to Laboratory Examiner [ redacted ] (Explosives Unit)."

In addition to the strange nature of some of the Israelis' possessions in the van and on their person, the company that employed them -- Urban Moving Systems -- was of special interest to the FBI, which concluded that the company was likely a "fraudulent operation." Upon a search of the company's premises, the FBI noted that "little evidence of a legitimate business operation was found."

The FBI report also noted that there were an "unusually large number of computers relative to the number of employees for such a fairly small business" and that "further investigation identified several pseudo-names or aliases associated with Urban Moving Systems and its operations."

[Sep 06, 2019] This documentary interrogates the notion that Osama Bin Laden single-handedly runs the pervasive Al Qaeda terrorist network by examining its inception, its links to Western intelligence, the double agents and fictitious characters that populate its ranks, and the fraudulent ways the Al Qaeda myth is propagated in the controlled corporate media.

Sep 06, 2019 | www.unz.com

Sparkon , says: September 6, 2019 at 12:12 am GMT

... ... ...

Giuliani is already a 9/11 suspect because he managed the entirely illegal destruction of key evidence before investigators ever saw it. In March 2002, the U.S. House Committee on Science reported:

"In the month that lapsed between the terrorist attacks and the deployment of the [FEMA] BPAT team, a significant amount of steel debris -- including most of the steel from the upper floors -- was removed from the rubble pile, cut into smaller sections, and either melted at the recycling plant or shipped out of the U.S. Some of the critical pieces of steel -- including the suspension trusses from the top of the towers and the internal support columns -- were gone before the first BPAT team member ever reached the site.

Later, in October 2001, Queen Elizabeth II named Giuliani Knight Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire for his "outstanding help and support to the bereaved British families in New York."and gave additional honors to the former NY Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik and Fire Commissioner Thomas Von Essen, making each a Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire.

But sure, cough cough, none of those glorious awards could have had anything to do with the gold , or the successful destruction of evidence, but rather were based on the trio's service to British subjects after the 9/11 attacks.

Agent76 , says: September 6, 2019 at 12:15 am GMT

Al Qaeda Doesn't Exist (Documentary) - 1 - YouTube

This documentary interrogates the notion that Osama Bin Laden single-handedly runs the pervasive Al Qaeda terrorist network by examining its inception, its links to Western intelligence, the double agents and fictitious characters that populate its ranks, and the fraudulent ways the Al Qaeda myth is propagated in the controlled corporate media.

[Sep 06, 2019] Major University Study Finds Fire Did Not Bring Down Tower 7 On 9-11

Looks like 9/11 is becoming another "we do not trust the USA government" story much like JFK assassination story.
Sep 06, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com

Authored by Matt Agorist via The Free Thought Project,

On September 11, 2001, at 5:20 p.m., World Trade Center Building 7 suddenly collapsed into its own footprint, falling at free fall speed for 2.5 seconds of its seven-second complete destruction. WTC 7 was not hit by a plane. After it collapsed, Americans were told that office fires caused a unique -- never before seen -- complete architectural failure leading to the building collapsing into its own footprint at the rate of gravity.

Despite calls for the evidence to be preserved, New York City officials had the building's debris removed and destroyed in the ensuing weeks and months, preventing a proper forensic investigation from ever taking place. Seven years later, federal investigators concluded that WTC 7 was the first steel-framed high-rise ever to have collapsed solely as a result of normal office fires.

Naturally, skeptics have been questioning the official story for some time and after moving from the realm of conspiracy theory into the realm of science, an extensive university study has found that the official story of fire causing the collapse is simply not true.

This week, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth announced their partnership with the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) in releasing a draft report of an in depth four-year study on what actually brought down WTC 7. According to the press release, the release of the draft report begins a two-month period during which the public is invited to submit comments. The final report will be published later this year.

According to the study's authors:

The UAF research team utilized three approaches for examining the structural response of WTC 7 to the conditions that may have occurred on September 11, 2001. First, we simulated the local structural response to fire loading that may have occurred below Floor 13, where most of the fires in WTC 7 are reported to have occurred. Second, we supplemented our own simulation by examining the collapse initiation hypothesis developed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Third, we simulated a number of scenarios within the overall structural system in order to determine what types of local failures and their locations may have caused the total collapse to occur as observed.

After conducting comprehensive modeling and studying countless scenarios, the study's authors, J. Leroy Hulsey, Ph.D., P.E., S.E., UAF, Zhili Quan, Ph.D., Bridge Engineer South Carolina Department of Transportation, and Feng Xiao, Ph.D., Associate Professor Nanjing University of Science and Technology Department of Civil Engineering, concluded the following:

Fire did not cause the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11, contrary to the conclusions of NIST and private engineering firms that studied the collapse. The secondary conclusion of our study is that the collapse of WTC 7 was a global failure involving the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building.

The results of this study cannot be dismissed. It completely destroys the narrative that has been shoved down the throats of Americans for nearly two decades. What's more, this study backs up thousands of other researchers, scientists, and engineers who have been pointing this out for years.

In fact, as TFTP reported in July, history was made in regard to 9/11 as New York area fire commissioners called for a new investigation into the tragic events that unfolded that day. The resolution called for a new investigation due to the "overwhelming evidence" that "pre-planted explosives . . . caused the destruction of the three World Trade Center buildings."

On July 24, 2019, the Franklin Square and Munson Fire District , which oversees a volunteer fire department serving a hamlet of 30,000 residents just outside of Queens, New York, became the first legislative body in the country to officially support a new investigation into the events of 9/11, according to Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

The resolution calling for a new investigation was drafted by Commissioner Christopher Gioia and it was immediately and unanimously approved by the five commissioners.

"We're a tight-knit community and we never forget our fallen brothers and sisters. You better believe that when the entire fire service of New York State is on board, we will be an unstoppable force," said Commissioner Christopher Gioia, adding, "We were the first fire district to pass this resolution. We won't be the last."

According to the report:

The impact of 9/11 on the community extends well beyond the victims and their grieving families. On September 12, 2001, the Franklin Square Fire Department was called in to assist with the massive rescue and recovery effort that was just getting underway. Countless members of the department, including Gioia and Commissioner Philip Malloy (then rank-and-file firefighters), spent weeks on the pile searching in vain for civilians and fellow responders who might still be alive. Today, Malloy is one of thousands suffering chronic health effects.

The department also lost one of its own in Thomas J. Hetzel, affectionately referred to as "Tommy" by the commissioners. Hetzel was a full-time member of the New York Fire Department in addition to serving as a volunteer firefighter in Franklin Square. A touching memorial to Hetzel was on display during the meeting, and Hetzel's widow, parents, and sister were all in attendance.

"The Hetzel and Evans families were very appreciative of the proceedings," Gioia commented the day after the meeting. "They know it's an uphill struggle. But at least they have hope, which is something they haven't had in a long time."

The importance of this resolution -- especially coming from a legislative body of fire fighters -- is immense. The impact of first responders calling for a new investigation over the use of explosives is massive. The naysayers who call those who question the official narrative "kooks" will have a hard time going after fire commissioners.

This move and the study above are yet another blow to the highly questionable and hole-filled official narrative. As TFTP reported earlier this year, in another major move from the great folks over at the Lawyers' Committee for 9/11 Inquiry, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, and 9/11 victim family members Robert McIlvaine and Barbara Krukowski-Rastelli, a joint federal lawsuit has been filed to assess any evidence the FBI may have known about that contributed to the destruction of the towers on 9/11 which they may have kept from Congress.

The complaint cites the failure of the FBI and its 9/11 Review Commission to assess key 9/11-related evidence that the FBI can be shown to have had, or been aware of, regarding:

  1. the use of pre-placed explosives to destroy World Trade Center Buildings, 1, 2, and 7;
  2. the arrest and investigation of the "High Fivers" observed photographing and celebrating the attacks on the World Trade Center on 9/11;
  3. terrorist financing related the reported Saudi support for the 9/11 hijackers;
  4. recovered plane parts, including serial numbers from all three crash locations;
  5. video from cameras mounted inside and outside the Pentagon; and
  6. cell phone communications from passengers aboard airplanes.

According to the press release on Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, this is evidence relevant to the 9/11 Review Commission's and the FBI's compliance with the mandate from Congress, which should have been assessed by the FBI and the 9/11 Review Commission and reported to Congress. The complaint also cites the destruction by the FBI of evidence related to the "High Fivers." Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth has joined in bringing the counts that involve the evidence of the World Trade Center's explosive demolition and evidence related to the "High Fivers," while the other plaintiffs are party to all counts.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/09y3XBLY-Ls

Also, as TFTP previously reported, a monumental step forward in the relentless pursuit of 9/11 truth took place last December when a United States Attorney agreed to comply with federal law requiring submission to a Special Grand Jury of evidence that explosives were used to bring down the World Trade Centers. Then, in March, the group behind the submission, the Lawyers' Committee for 9/11 Inquiry, announced the filing of a " petition supplement " naming persons who may have information related to the use of said explosives.

According to Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, the 33-page document contains 15 different categories of persons who may have information material to the investigation, including contractors and security companies that had access to the WTC Towers before 9/11, persons and entities who benefited financially from the WTC demolitions, and persons arrested after being observed celebrating the WTC attacks.

A names-redacted version of the petition supplement, which was filed with the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York on February 14, 2019, has been made available to the public. The un-redacted version filed with the U.S. Attorney today will remain undisclosed in the interest of maintaining the secrecy, security, and integrity of the grand jury proceeding.

As TFTP reported in December, for the first time since 9/11 the federal government is taking steps to hear evidence that explosives may have been used to destroy the world trade centers.

The Lawyers' Committee for 9/11 Inquiry successfully submitted a petition to the federal government demanding that the U.S. Attorney present to a Special Grand Jury extensive evidence of yet-to-be-prosecuted federal crimes relating to the destruction of three World Trade Center Towers on 9/11 (WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7).

After waiting months for the reply, the U.S. Attorney responded in a letter, noting that they will comply with the law.

"We have received and reviewed The Lawyers' Committee for 9/11 Inquiry, Inc.'s submissions of April 10 and July 30, 2018. We will comply with the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3332 as they relate to your submissions," U.S. Attorney Geoffrey Berman stated.

According to the petition, dozens of exhibits were presented as evidence that explosives were used to destroy all three world trade centers.

The Lawyers' Committee's April 10th 52-page original Petition was accompanied by 57 exhibits and presented extensive evidence that explosives were used to destroy three WTC Towers on 9/11. That evidence included independent scientific laboratory analysis of WTC dust samples s howing the presence of high-tech explosives and/or incendiaries ; numerous first-hand reports by First Responders of seeing and hearing explosions at the World Trade Center on 9/11; expert analysis of seismic evidence that explosions occurred at the WTC towers on 9/11 both prior to the airplane impacts and prior to the building collapses; and expert analysis and testimony by architects, engineers, and scientists concluding that the rapid onset symmetrical near-free-fall acceleration collapse of these three WTC high rise buildings on 9/11 exhibited the key characteristics of controlled demolition. The July 30th Amended Petition included the same evidence but also addressed several additional federal crimes beyond the federal bombing crime addressed in the original Petition.

The Lawyers' Committee concluded in the petitions that explosive and incendiary devices that had been preplaced at the WTC were detonated causing the complete collapse of the World Trade Center Twin Towers and Building 7 on 9/11, and the resulting tragic loss of life, and that "the evidence permits no other conclusion -- as a matter of science, as a matter of logic, and as a matter of law."

"This Petition Supplement is intended to assist the Special Grand Jury by providing a roadmap for a meaningful investigation into the yet-to-be-prosecuted 9/11 WTC crimes that the Lawyers' Committee has reported and documented in our Petitions," Attorney David Meiswinkle, President of the Lawyers' Committee's Board of Directors, said.

Finally, after nearly two decades of ridicule, dismissal, and outright intolerance of information contrary to the "official story" of what happened on 9/11, the public may finally learn the truth of what happened and who was behind it.

[Sep 06, 2019] Silverstein claimed that "pulling it" meant pulling the firemens' efforts to save the building. True? Maybe, maybe not.

Sep 06, 2019 | www.unz.com

Sam J. says: September 5, 2019 at 8:17 pm GMT 100 Words @utu We don't need finite element analysis. The building fell roughly 108 feet where the only thing holding it up was air. It had no support at all when it fell. Somehow all the steel columns and concrete ceased to give the building any support. All failing within milliseconds of each other supposedly from a few fires on four floors or so. Demo. Had to be. No other explanation. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments


Barry Gordon , says: September 5, 2019 at 8:17 pm GMT

@Whitewolf He claimed that "pulling it" meant pulling the firemens' efforts to save the building. True? Maybe, maybe not.
Kevin Barrett , says: Website September 5, 2019 at 9:02 pm GMT
@Barry Gordon Definitely not. Larry said (quoting from memory): "I was talking with the, er fire department commander, and we were saying, you know, there has been such terrible loss of life, maybe the best thing to do is pull it. So we made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

There were no firefighters in WTC-7. (If there had been, he wouldn't say "it," he would say "them." But there weren't any, so the grammatical point is irrelevant.)

The "decision to pull" – "watched it collapse" statement, as all native English speakers know, carries a close causal and chronological link. Making the decision to pull caused the collapse, and the collapse happened shortly after the decision was made.

If there had been firefighters in the building at 11 a.m. rescuing Barry Jennings and Michael Hess (the only reports of firefighters ever entering WTC-7) and if Larry and his friend posing as a "er fire department commander" had "pulled" them out then, and watched the building collapse at 5:20, six hours later, OBVIOUSLY Larry wouldn't have said it the way he said it. He would have said "we pulled the firefighters out of the building in the morning. Later that evening, when it collapsed, we were glad we had" or something to that effect.

Those of us researching 9/11 in 2004 made a huge stink about Larry's confession, which was well known by then. It was only many years later when Larry finally put out his silly alibi about "pulling firefighters."

Only a fool or someone ignorant of colloquial English could think Larry was talking about pulling out firefighters. These people must really think we're stupid.

Harold Smith , says: September 5, 2019 at 9:36 pm GMT
@Mike from Jersey

"However, this article does not help."

Yes it does.

For instance, Silverstein is not a 'confessed participant' in the destruction of the WTC.

ROTFL! So his life really was saved by a lucky appointment with a dermatologist; and his kids really were saved by luckily being late; and he wasn't actually lying when he lied about having a telephone conversation with the "fire dept. commander"; etc.?

"His statement about 'pulling it' is ambiguous."

To the extent it was ambiguous, it was *calculatedly* ambiguous; i.e., his use of the word "pull" was a lexical ambiguity intended to imply controlled demolition, thereby assuaging the cognitive dissonance of the masses, but allow for (implausible) deniability later based on semantics.

David Erickson , says: September 5, 2019 at 10:03 pm GMT
@Intelligent Dasein You might be right about the meaning of Larry Silverstein's statement "we made the decision to pull it". I have often wondered why he would have said such a thing if he meant initiate the controlled demolition of Building 7. However, that doesn't change the fact that Building 7 collapsed due to controlled demolition. It collapsed into its own footprint at free fall speed. There is only one thing that can cause that – controlled demolition. In fact Building 7 is the Achilles heel of the official narrative about 9/11. It is the only thing one needs to know to know that the official version is pure BS. Every other fact disproving the official narrative of 9/11 is simply icing on the cake. But nice try anyway at your red herring.
Sean , says: September 5, 2019 at 10:15 pm GMT
@Kevin Barrett Kevin Barrett says this man is telling the truth.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/8aNS3aC9EXQ?start=16&feature=oembed

Obvious lie, the Fire Chief is not going to ask the building owner for permission to pull his men out.

Never mind what he meant by what he says he said. I say Silverstein was and is lying about the whole thing, because he never said it. Only later in order to make it look like he was more interested in the lives of firefighters than his properties did he pretend there was any such decision on his part. So it was a attempt to burnish his reputation as a humanitarian for who lives are more important than a healthy balance sheet.

But Barrett thinks Silverstein was virtually admitting that he murdered thousands of people. This would be an act of self immolation if he did it and them stayed in the country; does Barrett not understand that Silverstein would be virtually committing suicide? A queue of self appointed judge jury and executioners would form to kill him. In no time at all there would be the begining of attempts on his life, and finally one would work no matter what the security. How can anyone believe the Truthers believe what they is true, if they are not even willing to do what the Pizzagate nut did, let alone punish a mass murderer. This article of Barrett stinks of a total lack of seriousness .

Robjil , says: September 5, 2019 at 11:38 pm GMT
@Patrikios Stetsonis The proof is all over the place in front of our faces every day.

Yet we are not allowed to see it.

The USS Liberty was supposed to be sunk on 6/8/67. It did not sink. So no wars for Israel.

On 9/11/01, Israel made sure that the three towers sunk. Wars for Israel went on. They are still going on, eighteen years now.

Sparkon , says: September 6, 2019 at 12:44 am GMT
@Anne Lid

Many people saw with their naked eyes the planes.

I f many people saw those planes, would you mind posting a link or two to support your claim?

There is no credible airplane wreckage at any of the alleged 9/11 crash sites; not at the WTC, not at the Pentagon, and not at Shanksville.

Additionally, according to Pilots for 9/11 Truth, there were automatic ACARS returns from two of the allegedly hijacked airliners from some time after their reputed crashes. For example, Flt. 93 was tracked to the vicinity of Champaign, Illinois well after it was said to have crashed near Shanksville, Pennsylvania.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/MORE-ACARS-CONFIRMATION.html

When the FBI got "Let's Roll" Todd Beamer's cell phone records from Verizon, they found his phone had made more than a dozen calls after Flt. 93's reputed crash.

It is possible there were aircraft of some kind flying around in the vicinity of the WTC at about the right time, in the same way that a large plane flew low over the Pentagon, but did not crash into it. It seems there were at least a few liars operating around the Pentagon, and nothing to rule out liars around the WTC.

Whatever anyone saw, the lack of the expected large amount of airplane debris at any of the crash sites argues strongly that there were in fact no hijacked jetliner crashes on 9/11.

ChuckOrloski , says: September 6, 2019 at 1:21 am GMT
@Sparkon Very importantly, Sparkon said: "Whatever anyone saw ,"

Hey Sparkon!

Please look at the article/video (linked below) & listen to NYFD 9/11 witness & survivor, Rudy Dent, speak & describe what he saw? Ideally many other commenters & Kevin Barrett will tune-in & listen to every word he said? Thanks, continue sparking, & my respect, Sparkon.

https://unitedtruthseekers.com/video/fdny-9-11-survivor-witness-and-whistleblower-speaks-on-wtc-7

annamaria , says: September 6, 2019 at 1:51 am GMT
@utu A story of Elie Wiesel, a scoundrel who betrayed profitably the memory of victims of WWII. Elie Wiesel was an embodiment of hypocrisy and shamelessness: http://www.unz.com/acockburn/truth-and-fiction-in-elie-wiesels-night/
Mark Hunter , says: September 6, 2019 at 4:10 am GMT
Paul Craig Roberts has a short piece dated yesterday, "The Official Story of the Collapse of WTC Building 7 Lies in Ruins." He quotes a resolution of the Franklin Square and Munson Fire District, and in it is this:

the overwhelming evidence presented in said petition demonstrates beyond any doubt that pre-planted explosives and/or incendiaries -- not just airplanes and the ensuing fires -- caused the destruction of the three World Trade Center buildings,

I'm skeptical. WTC 1 & 2 collapsed starting from the top: the top floor went first, then the next below, etc. WTC 7 collapsed from the bottom: the bottom floor went first, lowering all the floors above, then what had been the floor above collapsed, continuing to lower all the floors above.

WTC 1 & 2 each "melted" like a candle lit at the top. WTC 7 melted like an unlit candle resting on a hot stove.

I think WTC 1 & 2 probably collapsed as we have been told – see the articles here – and that WTC 7 probably collapsed from planted explosives – the University of Alaska research project bears it out.

Miro23 , says: September 6, 2019 at 4:30 am GMT
@Mulegino1

It has always been clear that the official 9/11 narrative was intended for those with i.q.'s of Stygian depth or so intellectually lazy as not to be bothered with the most rudimentary facts and the exercise of common sense, their heads buried in the sand of popular entertainment and sports.

Not so much. I bought and read the official 9/11 Commission Report and accepted its account of inter agency bungling and security failures, and it's We Must Do Better message in our fight against terrorism.

It was only years later that I came across an account of the collapse of Building 7 (that same day), and couldn't understand why it was never mentioned in the Report.

That lead on to the technical questions that made the goverment "Collapse by Fire" explanation impossible. Up to that point, it seemed quite straightforward that planes hit the buildings and that they collapsed. I wasn't one of the technical people who immediately realized that there was something wrong (like for instance Donald Trump):

Adrian , says: September 6, 2019 at 6:20 am GMT
@Intelligent Dasein See this interview on Dutch TV with a demolition expert, the late Danny Jowenko. He was unaware of the story about WTC 7 but after seeing the video he was convinced that this was a controlled demolition. What makes his analysis more convincing is that he obviously didn't suspect foul play and believed that, timewise, it could, though very difficult, all have been prepared after Silverstein gave the command "pull it". Anyone who is a bit more informed about the circumstances knows that this would have been impossible.

The main point is his conviction that we were dealing here with a controlled demolition.

Whitewolf , says: September 6, 2019 at 8:43 am GMT
@Barry Gordon

He claimed that "pulling it" meant pulling the firemens' efforts to save the building. True? Maybe, maybe not.

Having watched the video of him talking about it and his body language I'm inclined to believe he knew beforehand it was wired for demolition. Also it was that building that was reported to have fallen before it actually did on tv. Then you had the collapse of the building which looked like a controlled demolition much more so than the twin towers did as they came down.

Silverstein wasn't the mastermind though. It was probably one of the US alphabet agencies that did the planning.

imples , says: September 6, 2019 at 12:59 pm GMT
@Whitewolf Here's Silverstein's complete 'pull it' statement from Youtube:

"I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire. I said you know we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is, pull it. And they made that decision to pull, and we watched the building collapse."

Clearly Silverstein is talking about the Fire Department's personnel. He says 'you know we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is, pull it.' In other words he is implying that pulling the 'whatever' will save lives. Now pulling the 'building' will in fact kill more firefighters, so he is not talking about pulling the building. He is talking about pulling the fire fighting operation.

A further clue is the next sentence. 'And they made that decision to pull'. This means that Silverstein is saying 'the Fire Department pulled the 'whatever'. Now to say that the Fire Department pulled the building by controlled demolition is completely insane. How are the Fire Department going to set up a demolition job in two hours with everybody watching? What Silverstein is saying is that the Fire Department pulled the firefighting operation from the building.

Later, they watch the building collapse. This does not mean that the building collapsed immediately after the Fire Department pulled the firefighting operation from the building. It can mean at any time after this.

Its true that Silverstein's statement is poorly worded, but that's often the case in off the cuff speech. The amount of idiocy expended on this statement of Silverstein's, including by K Barrett, never ceases to amaze. Its a sure sign that any person who thinks Silverstein is a "confessed participant in the controlled demolition of Building 7", is an utter moron.

Neither Silverstein, nor the Fire Department, could ever have been in control of the demolition of WTC7. This would have been under the total control of the 9/11 plotters, operating from some central control room somewhere in the city. Silverstein undoubtedly would have known that WTC7 would be demolished, obviously since this would have been part of the deal he made with the plotters.

WTC7 was originally supposed to have been hit by Flight 93, but this flight was late taking off and the plane re-routed. Silverstein knew therefore that the building had to be pulled at some stage, since it was packed with explosives which might otherwise be discovered. Perhaps this knowledge,by a process of Freudian slippage, entered into his speech.

Apart from these sorts of stupidities, this article by K Barrett is quite good.

annamaria , says: September 6, 2019 at 1:36 pm GMT
@Anon Apologies for the very long repost below but it would be great to see informed responses to the post: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-09-05/major-university-study-finds-fire-did-not-bring-down-tower-7-911

[Aug 25, 2019] Claiming that the Zionists did 9/11 is ultimately just another way of shutting down rational inquiry

Notable quotes:
"... The game they play is getting easier to fall for and harder to resist. The more you hear those dreary repetitions about Labour anti-Semitism, the more you feel like screaming abuse at "the Jews". And then they have you exactly where they want. Then they can point a finger at you and say (with justification) "Ah! Anti-Semitism!" ..."
"... It would be entirely legitimate to say "the Russians" did it. This wouldn't be racist, or bigoted, or anything else. It wouldn't mean that all 150 million Russians were personally involved, or approved of this action, or played an active part in it, or even that they knew of it or could care less about it. ..."
Aug 25, 2019 | off-guardian.org


mark

9/11 was conceived, written and performed by the Chosen Folk, a large number of dual nationals, with the assistance of a few key goy stooges. It was a Zionist operation from beginning to end, a USS Liberty/ JFK writ large. The same pattern can be seen in every element of the operation. It was carried out by a Mossad network 200 strong. Lucky Larry Silverstein was the man on the ground in charge of the WTC site, and he made billions out of the atrocity. A score of moslem Lee Harvey Oswalds had a walk on part as convenient patsies. There is no "propaganda" involved. Just fact.
OffG
Your squeamish euphemisms notwithstanding, claiming 'the Jews' did 9/11 is ultimately just another way of shutting down rational inquiry. It's obvious to anyone that 'the Jews' as an entire ethnicity did not plan 9/11, any more than 'the Gentiles' or 'the Moslems' or 'the WASPS' did. People are turned away by your simplistic racism and want to look no further.

You could lead with 'Israel did it', or 'Mossad did it' – points you introduce later. But no, to you 'the Jews' did it. All of em. Including mr Cohen three doors down who says hello to you in the street.

You are rational and insightful on many other topics yet become a self-defeating bigot whenever you discuss Jewishness – which is far more often than occasions demand.

George
Plus the fact that blaming "the Jews" is exactly what the propagandists want you to do. (And I refer somewhat vaguely to "propagandists" because I really mean the ruling class, who couldn't care less about ethnicity, religion, race etc. Just as long as the wealthy keep their grip on the media and on society through their wealth.)

The game they play is getting easier to fall for and harder to resist. The more you hear those dreary repetitions about Labour anti-Semitism, the more you feel like screaming abuse at "the Jews". And then they have you exactly where they want. Then they can point a finger at you and say (with justification) "Ah! Anti-Semitism!"

mark
This is a case of setting up a ludicrous straw man.

Suppose for the sake of argument it was established that the Russian state actually did try to kill Skripal. Of course they didn't, but assume they did.

It would be entirely legitimate to say "the Russians" did it. This wouldn't be racist, or bigoted, or anything else. It wouldn't mean that all 150 million Russians were personally involved, or approved of this action, or played an active part in it, or even that they knew of it or could care less about it.

It wouldn't be some kind of racist trope that bus driver Mr. Ivanovich in Novosibirsk was somehow responsible.

Any more than 300 million Americans and 60 million British were personally responsible for the conspiracy to invade Iraq, or Bush's and Blair's criminal war of aggression.

In like manner the 9/11 atrocity was carried out by a few hundred individuals. Mostly Israeli and dual national Americans, and a significant number of Israel First stooge goys serving Zionist interests.

The vast majority of Jews and Israelis in the world played no part at all, and are just passive recipients of the cover conspiracy theories to explain it away.

This is just a smokecreen that is habitually thrown up whenever anyone connects the dots between Silverstein, a 200 strong Mossad ring, Chertoff, and so many others.

crank
I don't think anyone would seriously interpret the statement as meaning every Jewish person in the world was complicit in 9/11. I think OffGuardian Admin know this full well.

They, like many in the 9/11 truth community – let's face it – cannot allow an honest dispassionate consideration of the facts regarding 9/11 suspects, and the consequent unavoidable conclusion that a hugely disproportionate number of them are Jewish. They are conditioned into turning away from any conclusion which might challenge the more conforting idea that 'elements within the US secret state did 9/11' or 'a private intelligence network were responsible'. With honest consideration though it's hard to dispute your conclusion with respect to the perpetrators.

As you say, the Truth is 'antisemitic'. It stinks of hypocrisy when those who regard themselves as 'truth tellers' or 'truth inquirers' display the very same sophistry as the ones they rightly criticise when it comes to this issue.

This issue is still the key to understanding the politics of our age.

OffG
Are you genuinely deranged? No one on this site is 'sycophantic' to anyone, and you are not being asked to be so.

As we already said once and are saying for the second and last time – you and everyone else are free here to critique Israel and individual Jewish people and any other nation or group or individual on any grounds – EXCEPT THEIR RACE

If you find that's restrictive – well, you are a racist.

We're asking you for the second time to leave this discussion here. Move on to something useful or interesting.

crank

As we already said once and are saying for the second and last time – you and everyone else are free here to critique Israel and individual Jewish people and any other nation or group or individual on any grounds – EXCEPT THEIR RACE

Can we criticise their ideology?

Mandy Miller
"Their ideology"?? And what is that? I'm one of "them". What is my ideology, pray?

I've read your and Mark's attempts to twist your collective denigration of Jews into some type of political analysis. It's like reading Nazi rationalisations of their Final Solution. "The Jews believe they are chosen. The Jews run the banking system and only look after their own, so we have to put them in camps to save the country"

How many Jews do you talk to? Do you think we all run the banking system?

I find you disgusting. I applaud OffG's commitment to free speech, but all you do is exploit and abuse it.

mark
Don't take any notice of me, Mandy. I'm just a goy donkey. Get it straight from the horse's mouth.

"If we get caught, they will just replace us with persons of the same cloth. So it does not matter what you do. America is a golden calf and we will suck it dry, chop it up, and sell it off piece by piece until there is nothing left but the world's biggest welfare state that we will create and control. Why? Because it is the Will of God and America is big enough to take the hit. So we can do it again and again and again. This is what we do to countries that we hate. We destroy them very slowly and make them suffer for refusing to be our slaves." – Netanyahu.

"Goyim were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the world – only to serve the People of Israel. Imagine that one's donkey would die, they'd lose their money. This is his servant. That's why he gets a long life, to work well for this Jew. Why are Gentiles needed? They will work, they will plough, they will reap. We will sit like an effendi, and eat." – Ovadia Yosef, Chief Rabbi of Israel.

"Our Race is the Master Race. We are divine gods on this planet. We are as different from the inferior races as they are from insects. Other races are beasts and insects, cattle at best. Our destiny is to rule over the inferior races. The masses will lick our feet and serve us as our slaves." – Menachem Begin.

Mandy Miller
Oh what a nasty trick you try to pull. Quoting our biggest lunatics at me.

Yosef is dismissed by most sensible Jews as a crazy old bigot and racist. Begin was crazy too and a terrorist. Netanyahu? A thug and a racist fool.

I might as well put quotes up here from Hitler and Goebbels and say that means all white anglo saxons are Nazis.

What is wrong with you? Why is your response to racism to become a racist? Why do you so clearly hate me simply because I was born a Jew? I don't hate you, I do not think you are a donkey. I don't call you a goy. Why are you so full of such hate toward the Jewish race because some Jews are wackos? Newsflash, some white men are wackos also.

I think you have found a way to repeat up-vote your posts and those of the other racists on here. I hope so anyway, if not I am sad .

[Aug 16, 2019] The problem is that most people get their news from the mainstream media and as a result when they are confronted by evidence such as on 9/11 the building 7 at the World Trade Center was demolished by pre-planted explosives they suffer from cognitive dissonance and are unable to process the information.

Edited for clarity
Aug 16, 2019 | www.unz.com

9/11 Inside job , says: August 15, 2019 at 8:20 pm GMT

@ChuckOrloski Deja vu – the Pentagon on 9/11 where are the tapes ? New York Metropolitan Correctional Center on 8/11 where are the tapes ? Political Vel Craft has an excellent article entitled " Rothschild's Media ." The problem is that most people get their news from the mainstream media and as a result when they are confronted by evidence such as on 9/11 the building 7 at the World Trade Center was demolished by pre-planted explosives they suffer from cognitive dissonance and are unable to process the information.

[Aug 16, 2019] Easily one of the best, well researched online resources for 9/11

Aug 16, 2019 | off-guardian.org

Mucho

Easily one of the best, well researched online resources for 9/11 is http://www.bollyn.com

Christopher Bollyn's work is crucial as it is mainly focused on the who was behind the attacks, rather than endless investigations into the physics of the event. Physics is an important part of the 9/11 puzzle, but the players involved are of far more importance.

Here is one of his presentations, condensing some of his work into a seminar:

Christopher Bollyn DC 9/11/2017 "The War on Terror among Truth Seekers"

https://www.youtube.com/embed/PuOsiMVlMBw?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&autohide=2&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&wmode=transparent

[Jul 31, 2019] Philip Zelikow, effectively the sole author of that work of fiction known as the 9/11 Commission Report (which he completed in chapter outline before the Commission even convened) is a history professor and self-styled expert in "the creation and maintenance of public myths

Jul 31, 2019 | www.unz.com

Philip Zelikow, effectively the sole author of that work of fiction known as the 9/11 Commission Report (which he completed in chapter outline before the Commission even convened) is a history professor and self-styled expert in "the creation and maintenance of public myths." Zelikow defines public myths as "beliefs (1) thought to be true (although not necessarily known to be true with certainty), and (2) shared in common within the relevant political community." The public myths he is most interested in are those that most powerfully shape political perception and behavior; the first example he gives is the myth of the dastardly Japanese surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, which transformed America from an isolationist republic to an interventionist empire.

Anyone who has studied the alternative literature on such events as Pearl Harbor, the Kennedy assassinations, and 9/11 knows that any overwhelmingly powerful mythic event that changes public perceptions and, in so doing, changes history, ought to be greeted with profound suspicion and subjected to the most painstaking scrutiny. As Philip Zelikow wrote in a 1998 Foreign Affairs article , a catastrophic terror attack on America, such as the destruction of the World Trade Center, would be a "transforming event," a "watershed event in American history" that would, "like Pearl Harbor divide our past and future into a before and after." The "after" would feature "draconian measures, scaling back civil liberties, allowing wider surveillance of citizens, detention of suspects, and use of deadly force." Zelikow's 2001 false flag operation would achieve all that and more. It succeeded in demonizing opposition to Zionism and empire, and to tyranny in general, by associating resistance with the fearsome image of a scary looking guy sporting an easily-identifiable villain's beard.

[Jul 14, 2019] Osama Bin Truth

Jul 14, 2019 | www.unz.com

says: July 14, 2019 at 2:57 pm GMT 400 Words

There is a Lie.
Then there is BIG LIE.
Then there is 911.

Santa Claus is a LIE.
Jesus DIED for your EVILS is Beyond a LIE.

Mossad's execution of 9-11 should have been a wake up call.

You guys subscribed to the phony WMD and coyote planes dissapearing into the babylonian twin towers whilst your intuition should have kicked in and told you something is not right.

9-11 should have been the litmus test for truth but you conveniently ignored it. You looked the other way due to cognitive dissonance.

You followed Bush's order to go on a spending spree with more credit card debt jacked up with high interest to feed the satanic cabal instead.

With all these bogus wars on terror and non-ending hoaxes you have unwittingly supported the Zionist Satanic push for one world disorder.

At this point, all you can do is repent for your sins and start fighting back the criminal enterprize who are in charge of orchestrating all these bogus war on terror, creating these monstrous, diabolical, sinister ISISraHELL with the help of al-CIA-da and MOSSAD.

Alternate would be to sit back and enjoy bigger fireworks than 9-11 coming near you whilst they prepare greater IzraHELL for the coming of their Yahweh, The Anti-Christ dajjal who will globalize his reign of terror from Jerusalem.

Either way buckle up for a roller coaster ride with some of these demonic, totally psychopathic, diabolical, sinister, pathological liars and corrupters of mother earth. You reap what you sow.

The infuriating thing about 9/11 and the multitude of lesser false flags which both preceded and followed it is that, although most Americans know it was as phoney as a three and a half dollar fed reserve note, everyone seems content to put up with the extremely phoney "war on terror" it was designed to create and which has already destroyed a hand full of countries in the world, caused the murder of upwards of two million people, mostly using U.S. military, and turned the U.S. into a ruthlessly insane police state wherein everyone is made to obey patently unlawful statutes in the name of "emergency" while the ruling elite has quit obeying any laws at all while gathering a massive military presence to cow the now restless and resentful public

See more at: Christopher Bollyn: The Man Who Solved 9/11

Also Look up Sheik Imran Hosein for Islamic End time Eschatology .

[Jul 12, 2019] It is a small club, and they are in it

Jul 12, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com

.


sgt_doom , 7 hours ago

Apollo Asset Management ??!?!?!?

Hmmm . . . weren't they the owners of EurekaGGN when that optical fiber cable installer was responsible for installing "dark fiber" in the top 20 to 40 floors of the Twin Towers right before they both collapsed?

Wasn't a partner of Apollo the wife of then executive director of the CIA, and former partner and still affiliated with Alex Brown (owned by Deutsche Bank), the ancient investment firm (oldest in America) to which all those earnings from the puts and shorts on the airlines and other companies affected on 9/11/01 went?

Curious . . . .

FKTHEGVNMNT , 6 hours ago

Doing good work my friend. Keep at it.

Poochie , 6 hours ago

It is a small club, and they are in it.

[Jun 18, 2019] Trump I Think I Know Who Was Behind 9-11 Attacks

Jun 18, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com

President Trump says he knows who was behind the September 11, 2001 attacks, telling ABC News's George Stephanopoulos "Iraq did not knock down the World Trade Center," adding "It were other people. And I think I know who the other people were. And you might also. "

Nearly 3,000 people died when 19 mostly-Saudi terrorists hijacked four passenger planes, flying them into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, while the fourth went down in a Pennsylvania field after passengers allegedly fought back. Astonishingly, the passports of three hijackers were recovered; two at the Pennsylvania crash site, and one from the World Trade Center grounds. While nobody claimed responsibility for the attacks for several months, the NSA and German intelligence reported intercepting communications pointing to al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, after which investigators linked the 19 hijackers to the terrorist organization.

Trump segued from his 9/11 comments into a criticism of America's military intervention in the Middle East, calling it "the worst decision made in the history of our country," and describing the region as "like quicksand."

" It was a terrible decision to go into the Middle East. Terrible ," said Trump, adding "We're now up to almost $8 trillion. And when we want to build a roadway, a highway, a school, or something, everyone's always fighting over money. It's ridiculous. So that was a bad decision."

The US, backed by allies including Britain, invaded Afghanistan, where the terror group was being sheltered. But 9/11 was also used as part of the justification for the 2003 invasion of Iraq, which resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, more than 4,000 Americans and 179 British troops, and contributed to the rise of the Isis terror group. - Independent

Trump came under fire during the 2016 election when he claimed " There were people that were cheering on the other side of New Jersey, where you have large Arab populations ," adding "They were cheering as the World Trade Center came down." Defending his comments, Trump pointed to a September 18, 2001 Washington Post article which reads "In Jersey City, within hours of two jetliners' plowing into the World Trade Center, law enforcement authorities detained and questioned a number of people who were allegedly seen celebrating the attacks and holding tailgate-style parties on rooftops while they watched the devastation on the other side of the river ."

https://www.youtube.com/embed/sH1H77s8NNI?start=20

in April after he tweeted a montage of the 9/11 attacks interspersed between Somali-American Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) downplaying the incident as "some people did something," at a March 23 event for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).

Also arrested in the aftermath of the attacks were the so-called five "Dancing Israelis" which locals reported were celebrating around New Jersey.

five of the Israelis came to the FBI's attention after they were seen by New Jersey residents on Sept. 11 making fun of the World Trade Center ruins and going to extreme lengths to photograph themselves in front of the wreckage . The FBI seized and developed their photos, one of which shows Sivan Kurzberg flicking a cigarette lighter in front of the smouldering ruins in an apparently celebratory gesture . - Associated Press via Globe and Mail (2001)

In 2002, a "high-ranking American intelligence official" told Forward magazine that the men were " conducting a Mossad surveillance mission " - using their employer, Urban Moving Systems of Weehawken, NJ as a front. According to a 2002 report by ABC News , the FBI suspected the same.

The driver of the van, Sivan Kurzberg, told the officers, " We are Israeli. We are not your problem. Your problems are our problems . The Palestinians are the problem." The other passengers were his brother Paul Kurzberg, Yaron Shmuel, Oded Ellner and Omer Marmari.

When the men were transferred to jail, the case was transferred out of the FBI's Criminal Division, and into the bureau's Foreign Counterintelligence Section , which is responsible for espionage cases, ABCNEWS has learned.

One reason for the shift, sources told ABCNEWS, was that the FBI believed Urban Moving may have been providing cover for an Israeli intelligence operation . - ABC News (2002)

The Israelis claimed to have been on a "working holiday" in the United States, and were cleared by the FBI to return to Israel . During a media appearance on Israeli TV, one of the men said that they had been in New York at the time to " document the event " according to the 2002 ABC News report.

In May, the Trump administration complied with a FOIA request to provide redacted black-and-white photos of the men, however they do not appear to shed much additional light.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/aoYXihwcp8c?start=39


Helg Saracen , 17 minutes ago link

Guess who did. And made the one who benefited most from all this. The Americans have nothing to worry about, they have once again lost . Maybe the Americans should wake up and see what is really going on?

PerilouseTimes , 17 minutes ago link

The globalist wanted to pass the patriot act so they helped Osama bin Laden kill the US infidels that bribed the Saudi King.

AHBL , 21 minutes ago link

He complains about the deficit created by the Iraq war and yet he gives the Pentagon the biggest budget they've EVER had.

Incoherent moron

whoisjg , 32 minutes ago link

Patriotmouse.com has 4 special reports on 911 that have information not reported elsewhere.

JSBach1 , 28 minutes ago link

Great documentary and one I always recommend for 9/11. Titled: 'September 11 -- The New Pearl Harbor (FULL)' by Massimo Mazzucco (this is his YouTube channel )

pmc , 43 minutes ago link

"I Think I Know" Who Was Behind 9/11 Attacks

This appears to be a set up to blame Iran.

Watch in a week or two, maybe more, Trump will come out with something that points to Iran for 9/11.

Proud-Christian-White-American-Man , 46 minutes ago link

"Iraq did not knock down the World Trade Center," adding "It were other people. And I think I know who the other people were. And you might also. "

Prediction: Those people who knocked down the World Trade Center ,who President Trump definitely knows since he has access to all classified intelligence, are in President Trump's crosshairs. What Trump will do is invite Chuckie and Nancy in for a 'talk.'

He will tell them that it's time to build the wall or get hung by an irate citizenry from lampposts. The wall will be built. The rest of the Trump agenda will pass Congress and be implemented promptly. Then if President Trump is feeling merciful he will give the demon rats and the globalist rinos 30 days to pack their bags for China or similar nation. China will gladly take their ill gotten gains and execute them on a whim.

CharlieSeattle , 51 minutes ago link

9/11 Pentagon Attack - Behind the Smoke Curtain - Barbara Honegger

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fvJ8nFa5Qk

Barbara Honegger's presentation titled "Behind the Smoke Curtain" in Seattle's Town Hall Theater, January 12, 2013, on what happened and what didn't happen at the Pentagon on September 11, 2001.

[Jun 05, 2019] More info on Mossad foreknowledge of 9/11 in recent book focusing on FBI investigation:

May 21, 2019 | www.mintpressnews.com

WJ | May 19, 2019 4:42:59 PM | 13

More info on Mossad foreknowledge of 9/11 in recent book focusing on FBI investigation:

https://www.mintpressnews.com/newly-released-fbi-docs-shed-light-on-apparent-mossad-foreknowledge-of-9-11-attacks/258581/

[Jun 05, 2019] Look at a quote from one of the former employees of the Mossad front operation Urban Moving Systems

Notable quotes:
"... In addition to the strange nature of some of the Israelis' possessions in the van and on their person, the company that employed them -- Urban Moving Systems -- was of special interest to the FBI, which concluded that the company was likely a "fraudulent operation." Upon a search of the company's premises, the FBI noted that "little evidence of a legitimate business operation was found." The FBI report also noted that there were an "unusually large number of computers relative to the number of employees for such a fairly small business" and that "further investigation identified several pseudo-names or aliases associated with Urban Moving Systems and its operations." ..."
"... The FBI presence at the Urban Moving Systems search site drew the attention of the local media and was later reported on both television and in the local press. A former Urban Moving Systems employee later contacted the Newark Division with information indicating that he had quit his employment with Urban Moving Systems as a result of the high amount of anti-American sentiment present among Urban's employees. ..."
"... The former employee stated that an Israeli employee of Urban had even once remarked, "Give us twenty years and we'll take over your media and destroy your country" (page 37 of the FBI report ). ..."
"... This is a long article, but read it all the way through. It's proof that Israel was indeed behind 9/11 and that they had numerous operatives in the country who were gleeful about it, having set up video cameras and celebrated the day before by taking a photo of one of the operatives holding a lit cigarette lighter up to the horizon....right in front of the still-standing WTC twin towers. ..."
May 19, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com

regime change wars have been counterproductive to the interests of the American people...

... but very good for APARTHEID Israhell.

ALL MidEast terrorism and warmongering are for APARTHEID Israhell.


Son of Captain Nemo , 1 hour ago link

Hey Tulsi.

Have an idea for you on how to show true leadership and finish what the Orange "six-sided star" liar said he would pick up ( https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2016/11/14/trump-im-reopening-911-investigation/ ) when he began his presidency and then... well... lied to become a treasonous bag of **** just like the ones that preceded him!...

Even Vlad Putin and the rest of the Russian Federation refuse to "touch it". And if you did. You would be the only representative in the U.S. House and Senate let alone the U.S. Federal, State and local government(s) for that matter to do so.

All you would have to say is "we need an understanding why 2 planes demolished 3 building(s) at "Ground Zero" more then 18 years ago, and why the 9/11 Commission never mentioned the Solomon Brothers Building 7 in it's official report?... I (Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard) certainly want to know!... Especially wearing the uniform for what I believed was the reason I was given for invading Afghanistan and Iraq and murdering over 3 million people?... And I want to tell the American people ultimately "why" Building 7 was omitted along with too many other details that Robert Mueller famously dismissed by saying only that " mistakes were made " ...

I've written to you several times about showing the courage to be the only politician since Senator Wellstone to pick up where he left off and support the 13 year endeavors of this organization ( https://www.ae911truth.org/ ) to demand an investigation of the fact(s) now that has the backing of a Grand Jury by signing it's petition!...

But you won't. Because you are like every other "200lbs of ****" in a 100lbs bag that walks the halls of the Longworth carrying the water for the "Tribe"!

Keep telling yourself surfer **** that the job will get both easier and better by lying about that day and what it's done in it's wake to every institution and business in the United States of America let alone the laws of the land just like your mentor the Langley Bath House "boy"!...

dunlin , 1 hour ago link

Yes, Putin knows that an island of sanity and decency in a cesspit of bigotry and firearms is bound to be blown to pieces before she has a chance to deliver. I fear for Tulsi even now.

spoonful , 1 hour ago link

She sounds like the Trump of the 2020 campaign

Benito_Camela , 1 hour ago link

Yes, the Russia nonsense is FAKE NEWS. So why is Trump allowing the Israelis, a country that hates the United States, and which has attacked us at least twice (USS Liberty, 9/11/2001), to dictate our foreign policy? Israel is the real enemy!!

Let's look at a quote from one of the former employees of the Mossad front operation "Urban Moving Systems" (likely also the same people who planted the explosives at WTC) had to say about his time there:

In addition to the strange nature of some of the Israelis' possessions in the van and on their person, the company that employed them -- Urban Moving Systems -- was of special interest to the FBI, which concluded that the company was likely a "fraudulent operation." Upon a search of the company's premises, the FBI noted that "little evidence of a legitimate business operation was found." The FBI report also noted that there were an "unusually large number of computers relative to the number of employees for such a fairly small business" and that "further investigation identified several pseudo-names or aliases associated with Urban Moving Systems and its operations."

The FBI presence at the Urban Moving Systems search site drew the attention of the local media and was later reported on both television and in the local press. A former Urban Moving Systems employee later contacted the Newark Division with information indicating that he had quit his employment with Urban Moving Systems as a result of the high amount of anti-American sentiment present among Urban's employees.

The former employee stated that an Israeli employee of Urban had even once remarked, "Give us twenty years and we'll take over your media and destroy your country" (page 37 of the FBI report ).

This kind of thing makes one kind of hope for a war in which Israel is bombed back to the stone age, which is clearly where these evil, psychopathic Zionist filth belong!

This is a long article, but read it all the way through. It's proof that Israel was indeed behind 9/11 and that they had numerous operatives in the country who were gleeful about it, having set up video cameras and celebrated the day before by taking a photo of one of the operatives holding a lit cigarette lighter up to the horizon....right in front of the still-standing WTC twin towers.

https://www.mintpressnews.com/newly-released-fbi-docs-shed-light-on-apparent-mossad-foreknowledge-of-9-11-attacks/258581/

For further reference:

Benito_Camela , 1 hour ago link

And look at this. You won't see this in the MSM any time soon:

In addition to Urban Moving Systems, another moving company, Classic International Movers, became of interest in connection with the investigation into the "Dancing Israelis," which led to the arrest and detention of four Israeli nationals who worked for this separate moving company. The FBI's Miami Division had alerted the Newark Division that Classic International Movers was believed to have been used by one of the 19 alleged 9/11 hijackers before the attack, and one of the "Dancing Israelis" had the number for Classic International Movers written in a notebook that was seized at the time of his arrest. The report further states that one of the Israelis of Classic International Movers who was arrested "was visibly disturbed by the Agents' questioning regarding his personal email account."

[Jun 05, 2019] Still voting for Big Brother ? You might be a low-information voter

Any politician who voted for Iraq war should be voted out of the office and prohibited to hold any public office for life. They are all bottomfeeders, which conspired to convert the USA into National Security State. Officials in Bush administration and first of all Cheney need to be put on trial for destruction of evidence...
Notable quotes:
"... The FBI released the, "Five Dancing Israelis," that were arrested by the NYPD on 9-11 for filming and celebrating the attacks on the WTC and driving around in a van that tested positive for explosives. These were admitted Mossad agents working undercover in the USA. ..."
"... Those "idiots" were subsequently determined to be Mossad. The motto of Mossad was, until recently, "By way of deception thou shalt do war." ..."
May 13, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com

If you have never heard of the "Five Dancing Israelis," you might be a low-information voter.

The FBI released the, "Five Dancing Israelis," that were arrested by the NYPD on 9-11 for filming and celebrating the attacks on the WTC and driving around in a van that tested positive for explosives. These were admitted Mossad agents working undercover in the USA.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-03-08/do-you-remember-five-men-bein

hedgeless_horseman , 2 hours ago link

So you think that the dancing Israelis did it because a camera, mounted on a tripod, saw some idiots dancing on a roof? And somebody said that the furniture van was contaminated with explosive?

Those "idiots" were subsequently determined to be Mossad. The motto of Mossad was, until recently, "By way of deception thou shalt do war."

[May 13, 2019] Dancing Israelis FOIA Photos REVEALED!!! - YouTube

May 13, 2019 | www.youtube.com

Premiered 20 hours ago

Know More News with Adam Green
https://www.KnowMoreNews.org/

#DancingIsraelis #FOIA #911 #KnowMoreNews

Related Links:
9/11 Suspects: The Dancing Israelis - The Corbett Report
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XHm5...

9/11 Dancing Israelis and Urban Moving Systems - ABC News 20/20 preview, June 21, 2002
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOiCM...

"The power, but not the will", Nine Eleven, & Palestine | MUST WATCH!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MNPL...

9/11 Truth 15th Anniversary Playlist
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...

Javier Fernandez 2 years ago The men were detained by NYPD. The police and FBI field agents became suspicious when they found maps of the city with certain places highlighted, box cutters (the same items that the hijackers allegedly used), $4,700 cash stuffed in a sock, and foreign passports. Police also told a New Jersey local paper, The Bergen Record, that bomb sniffing dogs were brought to the van and that they reacted as if they had smelled explosives. According to the Jewish Weekly Forward the FBI later determined that at least two of the Israelis were Mossad agents.

Sivan Kurzberg & Paul Kurzberg, Yaron Schmuel, Oded Ellner &Omer Marmari. "We are not your problem"?

According to ABC News 20/20, after these five Israelis were detained, the driver of the van - Sivan Kurzberg - told the officers: "We are Israeli. We are not your problem. Your problems are our problems. The Palestinians are the problem." BananaRepublican 4 years ago To be sort of honest, The amount of stories for conspiracy leading to the twin tower collapse doesn't mean we can singly pin it on the jews, Technically there would have to be U.S. involvement. Paul Abbott 4 years ago Suspicious??? -documenting a supposedly unpredictable event

[May 12, 2019] Dancing Israelis FOIA Photos REVEALED!!! - YouTube

May 12, 2019 | www.youtube.com

Premiered 20 hours ago

Know More News with Adam Green
https://www.KnowMoreNews.org/

#DancingIsraelis #FOIA #911 #KnowMoreNews

Related Links:
9/11 Suspects: The Dancing Israelis - The Corbett Report
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XHm5...

9/11 Dancing Israelis and Urban Moving Systems - ABC News 20/20 preview, June 21, 2002
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOiCM...

"The power, but not the will", Nine Eleven, & Palestine | MUST WATCH!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MNPL...

9/11 Truth 15th Anniversary Playlist
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...

[May 12, 2019] Video: Unredacting the Dancing Israeli photos by deduction and matching with FBI and Police Reports

May 12, 2019 | governmentslaves.news

[Apr 19, 2019] The USA> creation of political Islam and supporting islamist fighters in Afhanistan created preconditions for the 9/11

So the USA helped to re-install medieval treatment of woman in Afghanistan and then called it progress toward human rights...
Notable quotes:
"... But, yes, 'somebody did something'. You don't need a conspiracy theory, because a conspiracy is a secret agreement to commit a crime, and this crime is right out in the open. Millions of people killed for fun and profit. Not that there weren't other conspiracies as well. ..."
Apr 18, 2019 | consortiumnews.com

Behind the Omar Outrage Suppressed History of 9-11 By Max Blumenthal

Trump's demagogic ploy with the freshman lawmaker raises the more serious question of who and what led to the "Day of Planes," writes Max Blumenthal.

... ... ...

To effectively puncture Trump's demagogic ploys, the discussion of 9/11 must move beyond a superficial defense of Omar and into an exploration of a critical history that has been suppressed. This history begins at least 20 years before the attacks occurred, when "some people did something." Many of those people served at the highest levels of U.S. government, and the things they did led to the establishment of Al Qaeda as an international network – and ultimately, to 9/11 itself.

Taliban 'Unimportant'

Back in 1979, some people initiated a multi-billion-dollar covert operation to trap the Red Army in Afghanistan and bleed the Soviet Union at its soft underbelly. They put heavy weapons in the hands of Islamist warlords such as Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, dispatched Salafi clerics such as "Blind Sheikh" Omar Abdel Rahman to the battlefield, and printed millions of dollars worth of textbooks for Afghan children that contained math equations encouraging them to commit acts of violent martyrdom against Soviet soldiers. They did anything they could to wreak havoc on the Soviet-backed government in Kabul.

These people were so hellbent on smashing the Soviet Union that they made common cause with the Islamist dictatorship of Pakistan's Zia-ul-Haq and the House of Saud. With direct assistance from the intelligence services of these U.S. allies, Osama bin Laden, the scion of Saudi wealth, set up his Services Bureau on the Afghan border as a waystation for foreign Islamist fighters.

These people even channeled funding to bin Laden so he could build training camps along the Afghan-Pakistan border for the so-called freedom fighters of the mujahideen. And they kept watch over a ratline that shepherded young Muslim men from the West to the front lines of the Afghan proxy war, using them as cannon fodder for a cold-blooded, imperial operation marketed by the Wahhabi clergy in Saudi Arabia as a holy obligation.

These people were in the CIA, USAID, and the National Security Council. Others, with names like Charlie Wilson, Jesse Helms, Jack Murtha, and Joe Biden, held seats on both sides of the aisle in Congress.

When they finally got what they wanted, dislodging a secular government that had provided Afghan women with unprecedented access to education, their proxies plunged Afghanistan into a war of the warlords that saw half of Kabul turned to rubble, paving the way for the rise of the Taliban. And these people remained totally unrepentant about the monster they had created.

"Can you imagine what the world would be like today if there was still a Soviet Union?" remarked Zbigniew Bzezinski, the former NSC director who sold President Jimmy Carter on the Afghan proxy war. "So yes, compared to the Soviet Union, and to its collapse, the Taliban were unimportant."

To some in Washington, the Taliban were a historical footnote. To others, they were allies of convenience. As a top State Department diplomat commented to journalist Ahmed Rashid in February 1997, "The Taliban will probably develop like Saudi Arabia. There be [the Saudi-owned oil company] Aramco, pipelines, an emir, no parliament and lots of Sharia law. We can live with that."

CIA Cover-ups and Blowback

Back in the U.S., some people fueled the blowback from the Afghan proxy war. The Blind Sheikh was given a special entry visa by the CIA as payback for the services he provided in Afghanistan, allowing him to take over the al-Kifah Center in New York City, which had functioned as the de facto U.S. arm of Al Qaeda's Services Bureau. Under his watch and with help from bin Laden, some people and lots of aid were shuttled to the front lines of U.S. proxy wars in Bosnia and Chechnya while the Clinton administration generally looked the other way.

Though the Blind Sheikh was eventually convicted in a terror plot contrived by a paid informant for the FBI, some people in federal law enforcement had been reluctant to indict him. "There was a whole issue about [Abdel-Rahman] being given a visa to come into this country and what the circumstances were around that," one of his defense lawyers, Abdeed Jabara told me. "The issue related to how much the government was involved with the jihadist enterprise when it suited their purposes in Afghanistan and whether or not they were afraid there would be exposure of that. Because there's no question that the jihadists were using the Americans and the Americans were using the jihadists. There's a symbiotic relationship."

During the 1995 trial of members of the Blind Sheikh's New York-based cell, another defense lawyer, Roger Stavis, referred to his clients before the jury as "Team America," emphasizing the role they had played as proxy fighters for the U.S. in Afghanistan. When Stavis attempted to summon to the witness stand a jihadist operative named Ali Abdelsauod Mohammed who had trained his clients in firearms and combat, some people ordered Mohammed to refuse his subpoena. Those people, according to journalist Peter Lance, were federal prosecutors Andrew McCarthy and Patrick Fitzgerald.

The government lawyers were apparently fretting that Mohammed would be exposed as an active asset of both the CIA and FBI, and as a former Army sergeant who had spirited training manuals out of Fort Bragg while stationed there during the 1980s. So Mohammed remained a free man, helping Al Qaeda plan attacks on American consular facilities in Tanzania and Kenya while the "Day of the Planes" plot began to take form.

In early 2000, some people gathered in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, to prepare the most daring Al Qaeda operation to date. Two figures at the meeting, Saudi citizens named Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Midhar, were on their way to the United States. While in Kuala Lumpur, the duo's hotel room was broken into by CIA agents, their passports were photographed, and their communications were recorded. And yet the pair of Al Qaeda operatives was able to travel together with multiple-entry visas on a direct flight from Kuala Lumpur to Los Angeles. That's because for some reason, some people from the CIA failed to notify any people at the FBI about the terror summit that had just taken place. The "Day of Planes" plot was moving forward without a kink.

In Los Angeles, some people met Hazmi and Midhar at the airport, provided the two non-English speakers with a personal caretaker and rented them apartments, where neighbors said they were routinely visited each night by unknown figures in expensive cars with darkened windows. Those people were Saudi Arabian intelligence agents named Omar Bayoumi and Khaled al-Thumairy.

Crawford , Texas

It was not until August 2001 that Midhar was placed on a terrorist watch list. That month, some people met at a ranch in Crawford, Texas, and reviewed a classified document headlined, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike Inside the US." The bulletin was a page-and-a-half long, with detailed intelligence on the "Day of Planes" plot provided by Ali Mohammed, the Al Qaeda-FBI-CIA triple agent now registered as "John Doe" and disappeared somewhere in the federal prison system. Those people reviewed the document for a few minutes before their boss, President George W. Bush, moved on to other matters.

According to The Washington Post , Bush exhibited an "expansive mood" that day, taking in a round of golf. "We are going to be struck soon, many Americans are going to die, and it could be in the U.S.," CIA counterterrorism chief Cofer Black warned days later. Bush did not meet with his cabinet heads again to discuss terrorism until Sept. 4.

A week later, on Sept. 11, some people did something.

They hijacked four civilian airliners and changed the course of American history with little more than box cutter blades in their hands. Fifteen of those 19 people, including Hazmi and Midhar, were citizens of Saudi Arabia. They were products of a Wahhabi school system and a politically stultifying society that had thrived under the protection of a special relationship with the U.S. Indeed, the U.S. had showered theocratic allies like Saudi Arabia with aid and weapons while threatening secular Arab states that resisted its hegemony with sanctions and invasion. The Saudis were the favorite Muslims of America's national security elite not because they were moderate, which they absolutely were not, but because they were useful.

In the days after 9/11, the FBI organized several flights to evacuate prominent Saudi families from the U.S., including relatives of Osama bin Laden. Meanwhile, Islamophobia erupted across the country, with even mainstream personalities such as TV news anchor Dan Rather taking to the airwaves to claim without evidence that Arab-Americans had celebrated the 9/11 attacks.

Unable to find a single operational Al Qaeda cell in the country, the FBI turned to an army of paid snitches to haul in mentally unstable Muslims, dupes and idlers like the Lackawanna 6 in manufactured plots. Desperate for a high-profile bust to reinforce the "war on terror" narrative, the bureau hounded Palestinian Muslim activists and persecuted prominent Islamic charities like the Holy Land Foundation, sending its directors to prison for decades for the crime of sending aid to NGOs in the occupied Gaza Strip.

As America's national security state cracked down on Muslim civil society at home, it turned to fanatical Islamist proxies abroad to bring down secular and politically independent Arab states. In Libya, the U.S. and UK helped arm the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, a longtime affiliate of Al Qaeda, using it as a proxy to depose and murder Muammar Gaddafi. As that country transformed from a stable, prosperous state into an Afghanistan-style playground for rival militias, including a chapter of the Islamic State, the Obama administration moved to do the same to Damascus.

In Syria, the CIA armed an outfit of supposedly "moderate rebels" called the Free Syrian Army that turned out to be nothing more than a political front and weapons farm for an array of extremist insurgent factions including Al Qaeda's local affiliate and the Islamic State. The latter two groups were, of course, products of the sectarian chaos of Iraq, which had been ruled by a secular government until the U.S. came knocking after 9/11.

The blowback from Iraq, Libya and Syria arrived in the form of the worst refugee crises the world has experienced since World War II. And then came the bloodiest terror attack to hit the UK in history – in Manchester. There, the son of a Libyan Islamic Fighting Group member, who traveled to Libya and Syria on an MI6 ratline, slaughtered concert-goers with a nail bomb.

Cataclysmic social disruptions like these were like steroids for right-wing Islamophobes, electrifying Trump's victorious 2016 presidential campaign, a wing of the Brexit "Leave" campaign in the UK, and far-right parties across Europe. But as I explain in "The Management of Savagery," these terrifying trends were byproducts of decisions undertaken by national security elites more closely aligned with the political center – figures who today attempt to position themselves as leaders of the anti-Trump resistance.

Which people did which things to drag us into the political nightmare we're living through? For those willing to cut through the campaign season bluster, Ilhan Omar's comments dare us to name names.

Max Blumenthal is an award-winning journalist and the author of books including best-selling " Republican Gomorrah ," " Goliath ," " The Fifty One Day War " and " The Management of Savagery ," published in March 2019 by Verso. He has also produced numerous print articles for an array of publications, many video reports and several documentaries including " Killing Gaza " and " Je Ne Suis Pas Charlie ." Blumenthal founded the Grayzone in 2015 to shine a journalistic light on America's state of perpetual war and its dangerous domestic repercussions. 36 comments for "Behind the Omar Outrage: Suppressed History of 9/11"


Jeff Harrison , April 19, 2019 at 11:24

The US doesn't seem to have the ability to see ourselves as others see us. This explains why we don't understand why other countries/peoples react badly towards us. This will get worse as we move into a more imperialistic mode. We continue to use the anachronistic phrase "leader of the free world" all the while missing out on the fact that the rest of the world has, in essence, become free and they, for the most part, don't want us leading them.

bill haymes , April 19, 2019 at 05:20

everyone who has not examined ALL THE EVIDENCE of 9/11 WITH AN OPEN MIND is imo simply whistling in the wind

Anarcissie , April 19, 2019 at 11:12

I suppose, then, that that would mean going back to the earliest days of the 20th century, when the British leadership, considering that its future navy, a main pillar of its empire, would have to be fueled with oil instead of coal, and that there was a lot of oil in the Middle East, began its imperial projects there, which of course involved wars, police, spies, economic blackmail, and other tools of empire. The US seized or wangled or inherited the imperial system from the British and thus acquired the associated regional, ethnic, and religious hostilities as well. Since the Arabs and other Muslims were weak compared with the Great Powers, resistance meant terrorism and guerrilla warfare on one side and massive intervention and the support of local strongmen, Mafia bosses, dictators, and so on on the other.

After 9/11. mentioning this important fact became 'justifying bin Laden' or 'spitting on the graves of the dead' so you couldn't talk about it.

But, yes, 'somebody did something'. You don't need a conspiracy theory, because a conspiracy is a secret agreement to commit a crime, and this crime is right out in the open. Millions of people killed for fun and profit. Not that there weren't other conspiracies as well.

Abe , April 18, 2019 at 23:23

Behind the Omar Outrage: Suppressed History of the pro-Israel Lobby

Max Blumenthal's article and his 2019 book, The Management of Savagery: How America's National Security State Fueled the Rise of Al Qaeda, ISIS, and Donald Trump (2019), is an impressive exercise in burying the leads.

Blumenthal does chronicle a decades-long panoply of active measures by numerous pro-Israel Lobby figures, groups and think tanks. Yet he fails to explicitly recognize the connection between pro-Israel Lobby efforts and the covert operations and overt invasions of America's national security state.

Julian Assange of Wikileaks was more explicit. Assange named the "country that has interfered in U.S. elections, has endangered Americans living or working overseas and has corrupted America's legislative and executive branches. It has exploited that corruption to initiate legislation favorable to itself, has promoted unnecessary and unwinnable wars and has stolen American technology and military secrets. Its ready access to the mainstream media to spread its own propaganda provides it with cover for its actions and it accomplishes all that and more through the agency of a powerful and well-funded domestic lobby [ ] That country is, of course, Israel."

frank scott , April 18, 2019 at 22:55

i really like her and support her but if she just had the good sense to have simply said "some people did something terrible" none of the present chapter of "islamophobia" would be acted out..no matter how much we think we know about the real truth(?) what happened that day did not blow up the white house, congress or the ruling class of america but nearly three thousand pretty ordinary folks yes, just like what "we" do repeatedly, but nevertheless, and considering the overwhelming mind fuck that went on with replaying the tragedy on tv for days so that millions across the nation were put in shock, we need to be just a little more considerate and possibly understanding both about how many people might feel and how some people might use any opportunity to perform this second rate islamophobia, which is a tiny fractional form of the original monstrous behavior that has destroyed nations, governments and millions of people in the islamic world..that is islamophobia, not the reactionary crap that passes for it which should be as understandable – under the circumstances – as terrorism!

Zhu , April 18, 2019 at 22:32

It should have been obvious that our government had made enemies around the world & that some would attempt revenge some day. Instead, we all thought that what we did to other people could never happen to us.

Joe Tedesky , April 18, 2019 at 21:41

This is a must read for the skeptics who doubt any questioning of the official 9/11 Commission Report. This investigative reporting by Max Blumenthal is another good reason to read the Consortium.

hetro , April 18, 2019 at 17:18

Max Blumenthal's emphasis on "somebody did something" in echo to Ilhan Omar's comments, plus his emphasis on what has been "suppressed," will hopefully lead on to further disclosures of what took place for the 9/11 event.

Anyone who watches the Omar video will see she is mainly emphasizing a disgraceful demonizing of Muslims in general. Additionally, what has brought on all the hatred to her, she did not speak with the "quasi-theological understanding" that demands the official narrative, with hushed tones, while speaking of the event:

Max Blumenthal above:

". . . by reinforcing the quasi-theological understanding of 9/11 that leaves anti-Muslim narratives unchallenged. "The memory of 9/11 is sacred ground, and any discussion of it must be done with reverence," insisted House Speaker Nancy Pelosi."

It would be a fine thing for CN, despite Mr. Parry's former reservations, to open up enquiry into further discussion of what has been "suppressed"–or at the very least to the very serious questions that have not yet been answered on that horrible day.

OlyaPola , April 18, 2019 at 14:17

"Trump's demagogic ploy with the freshman lawmaker raises the more serious question of who and what led to the "Day of Planes," writes Max Blumenthal."

All processes of suppression tend to spread that which is being suppresed facilitating de-suppression of much that is being suppressed leaving a residual.

Framing and access to sources may continue the lack of perception of this residual and hence facilitate misrepresentation through ommission.

"Back in 1979, some people initiated a multi-billion-dollar covert operation to trap the Red Army in Afghanistan and bleed the Soviet Union at its soft underbelly."

Restriction of frame is a tool of obfuscation and choice of point of initiation a tool of misrepresentation.

During the early 1970's due to internal factors primarily but not wholly in the period of 1964 to 1970, the Politburo of the Soviet Union agreed detente on the bases of spheres of influence with the United States of America facilitating the creation of a greater assay of and reliance upon the US dollar fiat currency, further butressed by commodity arrangements including but not restricted to the petro-dollar, in part to underpin the United States of America economic recovery including recovering their control over their perceived threats within their sphere of influence, particularly but not exclusively Japan.

In reaction/attempt at circumvention in 1973 Mitsui-Mitsubishi representing the zaibatsu sought to jointly develop the Trans-Siberian railway, the port of Nahodka and other industrial options including in Japan primarily in Northern Honshu and in Hokkaido with the Soviet Union but this project was terminated by the Politburo, the reason given being potential threats from China after confrontation including on the Amur and the need to build BAM (Baikal-Amur Railway) to the north of the Trans-Siberian Railway – the projects rejected were ancestor of the present OBOR project with differing participants re-explored from 1993 onwards.

These opportunities and trajectories in the 1970's were explained to the Politburo in the 1970's but rejected by the Politburo.

The Soviet Union was invited into Afghanistan by the Afghani government and hence never "invaded" Afghanistan.

The Politburo accepted the invitation of the Afghani government despite the advice of those practiced in strategic evaluation – the illusion that the Politburo was practiced in strategic evaluation endured in an ideological half-life post August 1968 but increasingly was ignored in practice.

During the 1970's there was an oscillating aspect of contrariness and attempt to regain perceived control in many of the decision of the Politburo led by the man who loved medals and awards Mr. Brezhnev.

Consequently the Politburo and the Soviet Union was complicit in facilitating opportunities for " Back in 1979, some people initiated a multi-billion-dollar covert operation to trap the Red Army in Afghanistan and bleed the Soviet Union at its soft underbelly."

However the targets of these operations were not restricted to the Soviet Union but included as part of an ongoing "strategy" "to underpin the United States of America economic recovery/maintainence including recovering/maintaining their control over their perceived threats within their sphere of influence, particularly but not exclusively Japan." and the location of these efforts were chosen the middle of Central Asia in reaction to experiences in Vietnam, Saudi Arabia and Israel post 1973.

The above are necessarily thumbnails in confirmation and extension of the not widely perceived causation/facilitation/ history/trajectories/time horizons which may aid perception, as may testing the hypotheses that Ms. Omar is being attacked for challenging myth irrespective of which myth she attempts to challenge.

[Apr 19, 2019] US creation of political Islam and supporting islamist fighters in Afhanistan created preconditions for the 9/11

Notable quotes:
"... But, yes, 'somebody did something'. You don't need a conspiracy theory, because a conspiracy is a secret agreement to commit a crime, and this crime is right out in the open. Millions of people killed for fun and profit. Not that there weren't other conspiracies as well. ..."
Apr 18, 2019 | consortiumnews.com

Behind the Omar Outrage Suppressed History of 9-11 By Max Blumenthal

Trump's demagogic ploy with the freshman lawmaker raises the more serious question of who and what led to the "Day of Planes," writes Max Blumenthal.

... ... ...

To effectively puncture Trump's demagogic ploys, the discussion of 9/11 must move beyond a superficial defense of Omar and into an exploration of a critical history that has been suppressed. This history begins at least 20 years before the attacks occurred, when "some people did something." Many of those people served at the highest levels of U.S. government, and the things they did led to the establishment of Al Qaeda as an international network – and ultimately, to 9/11 itself.

Taliban 'Unimportant'

Back in 1979, some people initiated a multi-billion-dollar covert operation to trap the Red Army in Afghanistan and bleed the Soviet Union at its soft underbelly. They put heavy weapons in the hands of Islamist warlords such as Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, dispatched Salafi clerics such as "Blind Sheikh" Omar Abdel Rahman to the battlefield, and printed millions of dollars worth of textbooks for Afghan children that contained math equations encouraging them to commit acts of violent martyrdom against Soviet soldiers. They did anything they could to wreak havoc on the Soviet-backed government in Kabul.

These people were so hellbent on smashing the Soviet Union that they made common cause with the Islamist dictatorship of Pakistan's Zia-ul-Haq and the House of Saud. With direct assistance from the intelligence services of these U.S. allies, Osama bin Laden, the scion of Saudi wealth, set up his Services Bureau on the Afghan border as a waystation for foreign Islamist fighters.

These people even channeled funding to bin Laden so he could build training camps along the Afghan-Pakistan border for the so-called freedom fighters of the mujahideen. And they kept watch over a ratline that shepherded young Muslim men from the West to the front lines of the Afghan proxy war, using them as cannon fodder for a cold-blooded, imperial operation marketed by the Wahhabi clergy in Saudi Arabia as a holy obligation.

These people were in the CIA, USAID, and the National Security Council. Others, with names like Charlie Wilson, Jesse Helms, Jack Murtha, and Joe Biden, held seats on both sides of the aisle in Congress.

When they finally got what they wanted, dislodging a secular government that had provided Afghan women with unprecedented access to education, their proxies plunged Afghanistan into a war of the warlords that saw half of Kabul turned to rubble, paving the way for the rise of the Taliban. And these people remained totally unrepentant about the monster they had created.

"Can you imagine what the world would be like today if there was still a Soviet Union?" remarked Zbigniew Bzezinski, the former NSC director who sold President Jimmy Carter on the Afghan proxy war. "So yes, compared to the Soviet Union, and to its collapse, the Taliban were unimportant."

To some in Washington, the Taliban were a historical footnote. To others, they were allies of convenience. As a top State Department diplomat commented to journalist Ahmed Rashid in February 1997, "The Taliban will probably develop like Saudi Arabia. There be [the Saudi-owned oil company] Aramco, pipelines, an emir, no parliament and lots of Sharia law. We can live with that."

CIA Cover-ups and Blowback

Back in the U.S., some people fueled the blowback from the Afghan proxy war. The Blind Sheikh was given a special entry visa by the CIA as payback for the services he provided in Afghanistan, allowing him to take over the al-Kifah Center in New York City, which had functioned as the de facto U.S. arm of Al Qaeda's Services Bureau. Under his watch and with help from bin Laden, some people and lots of aid were shuttled to the front lines of U.S. proxy wars in Bosnia and Chechnya while the Clinton administration generally looked the other way.

Though the Blind Sheikh was eventually convicted in a terror plot contrived by a paid informant for the FBI, some people in federal law enforcement had been reluctant to indict him. "There was a whole issue about [Abdel-Rahman] being given a visa to come into this country and what the circumstances were around that," one of his defense lawyers, Abdeed Jabara told me. "The issue related to how much the government was involved with the jihadist enterprise when it suited their purposes in Afghanistan and whether or not they were afraid there would be exposure of that. Because there's no question that the jihadists were using the Americans and the Americans were using the jihadists. There's a symbiotic relationship."

During the 1995 trial of members of the Blind Sheikh's New York-based cell, another defense lawyer, Roger Stavis, referred to his clients before the jury as "Team America," emphasizing the role they had played as proxy fighters for the U.S. in Afghanistan. When Stavis attempted to summon to the witness stand a jihadist operative named Ali Abdelsauod Mohammed who had trained his clients in firearms and combat, some people ordered Mohammed to refuse his subpoena. Those people, according to journalist Peter Lance, were federal prosecutors Andrew McCarthy and Patrick Fitzgerald.

The government lawyers were apparently fretting that Mohammed would be exposed as an active asset of both the CIA and FBI, and as a former Army sergeant who had spirited training manuals out of Fort Bragg while stationed there during the 1980s. So Mohammed remained a free man, helping Al Qaeda plan attacks on American consular facilities in Tanzania and Kenya while the "Day of the Planes" plot began to take form.

In early 2000, some people gathered in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, to prepare the most daring Al Qaeda operation to date. Two figures at the meeting, Saudi citizens named Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Midhar, were on their way to the United States. While in Kuala Lumpur, the duo's hotel room was broken into by CIA agents, their passports were photographed, and their communications were recorded. And yet the pair of Al Qaeda operatives was able to travel together with multiple-entry visas on a direct flight from Kuala Lumpur to Los Angeles. That's because for some reason, some people from the CIA failed to notify any people at the FBI about the terror summit that had just taken place. The "Day of Planes" plot was moving forward without a kink.

In Los Angeles, some people met Hazmi and Midhar at the airport, provided the two non-English speakers with a personal caretaker and rented them apartments, where neighbors said they were routinely visited each night by unknown figures in expensive cars with darkened windows. Those people were Saudi Arabian intelligence agents named Omar Bayoumi and Khaled al-Thumairy.

Crawford , Texas

It was not until August 2001 that Midhar was placed on a terrorist watch list. That month, some people met at a ranch in Crawford, Texas, and reviewed a classified document headlined, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike Inside the US." The bulletin was a page-and-a-half long, with detailed intelligence on the "Day of Planes" plot provided by Ali Mohammed, the Al Qaeda-FBI-CIA triple agent now registered as "John Doe" and disappeared somewhere in the federal prison system. Those people reviewed the document for a few minutes before their boss, President George W. Bush, moved on to other matters.

According to The Washington Post , Bush exhibited an "expansive mood" that day, taking in a round of golf. "We are going to be struck soon, many Americans are going to die, and it could be in the U.S.," CIA counterterrorism chief Cofer Black warned days later. Bush did not meet with his cabinet heads again to discuss terrorism until Sept. 4.

A week later, on Sept. 11, some people did something.

They hijacked four civilian airliners and changed the course of American history with little more than box cutter blades in their hands. Fifteen of those 19 people, including Hazmi and Midhar, were citizens of Saudi Arabia. They were products of a Wahhabi school system and a politically stultifying society that had thrived under the protection of a special relationship with the U.S. Indeed, the U.S. had showered theocratic allies like Saudi Arabia with aid and weapons while threatening secular Arab states that resisted its hegemony with sanctions and invasion. The Saudis were the favorite Muslims of America's national security elite not because they were moderate, which they absolutely were not, but because they were useful.

In the days after 9/11, the FBI organized several flights to evacuate prominent Saudi families from the U.S., including relatives of Osama bin Laden. Meanwhile, Islamophobia erupted across the country, with even mainstream personalities such as TV news anchor Dan Rather taking to the airwaves to claim without evidence that Arab-Americans had celebrated the 9/11 attacks.

Unable to find a single operational Al Qaeda cell in the country, the FBI turned to an army of paid snitches to haul in mentally unstable Muslims, dupes and idlers like the Lackawanna 6 in manufactured plots. Desperate for a high-profile bust to reinforce the "war on terror" narrative, the bureau hounded Palestinian Muslim activists and persecuted prominent Islamic charities like the Holy Land Foundation, sending its directors to prison for decades for the crime of sending aid to NGOs in the occupied Gaza Strip.

As America's national security state cracked down on Muslim civil society at home, it turned to fanatical Islamist proxies abroad to bring down secular and politically independent Arab states. In Libya, the U.S. and UK helped arm the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, a longtime affiliate of Al Qaeda, using it as a proxy to depose and murder Muammar Gaddafi. As that country transformed from a stable, prosperous state into an Afghanistan-style playground for rival militias, including a chapter of the Islamic State, the Obama administration moved to do the same to Damascus.

In Syria, the CIA armed an outfit of supposedly "moderate rebels" called the Free Syrian Army that turned out to be nothing more than a political front and weapons farm for an array of extremist insurgent factions including Al Qaeda's local affiliate and the Islamic State. The latter two groups were, of course, products of the sectarian chaos of Iraq, which had been ruled by a secular government until the U.S. came knocking after 9/11.

The blowback from Iraq, Libya and Syria arrived in the form of the worst refugee crises the world has experienced since World War II. And then came the bloodiest terror attack to hit the UK in history – in Manchester. There, the son of a Libyan Islamic Fighting Group member, who traveled to Libya and Syria on an MI6 ratline, slaughtered concert-goers with a nail bomb.

Cataclysmic social disruptions like these were like steroids for right-wing Islamophobes, electrifying Trump's victorious 2016 presidential campaign, a wing of the Brexit "Leave" campaign in the UK, and far-right parties across Europe. But as I explain in "The Management of Savagery," these terrifying trends were byproducts of decisions undertaken by national security elites more closely aligned with the political center – figures who today attempt to position themselves as leaders of the anti-Trump resistance.

Which people did which things to drag us into the political nightmare we're living through? For those willing to cut through the campaign season bluster, Ilhan Omar's comments dare us to name names.

Max Blumenthal is an award-winning journalist and the author of books including best-selling " Republican Gomorrah ," " Goliath ," " The Fifty One Day War " and " The Management of Savagery ," published in March 2019 by Verso. He has also produced numerous print articles for an array of publications, many video reports and several documentaries including " Killing Gaza " and " Je Ne Suis Pas Charlie ." Blumenthal founded the Grayzone in 2015 to shine a journalistic light on America's state of perpetual war and its dangerous domestic repercussions. 36 comments for "Behind the Omar Outrage: Suppressed History of 9/11"


Jeff Harrison , April 19, 2019 at 11:24

The US doesn't seem to have the ability to see ourselves as others see us. This explains why we don't understand why other countries/peoples react badly towards us. This will get worse as we move into a more imperialistic mode. We continue to use the anachronistic phrase "leader of the free world" all the while missing out on the fact that the rest of the world has, in essence, become free and they, for the most part, don't want us leading them.

bill haymes , April 19, 2019 at 05:20

everyone who has not examined ALL THE EVIDENCE of 9/11 WITH AN OPEN MIND is imo simply whistling in the wind

Anarcissie , April 19, 2019 at 11:12

I suppose, then, that that would mean going back to the earliest days of the 20th century, when the British leadership, considering that its future navy, a main pillar of its empire, would have to be fueled with oil instead of coal, and that there was a lot of oil in the Middle East, began its imperial projects there, which of course involved wars, police, spies, economic blackmail, and other tools of empire. The US seized or wangled or inherited the imperial system from the British and thus acquired the associated regional, ethnic, and religious hostilities as well. Since the Arabs and other Muslims were weak compared with the Great Powers, resistance meant terrorism and guerrilla warfare on one side and massive intervention and the support of local strongmen, Mafia bosses, dictators, and so on on the other.

After 9/11. mentioning this important fact became 'justifying bin Laden' or 'spitting on the graves of the dead' so you couldn't talk about it.

But, yes, 'somebody did something'. You don't need a conspiracy theory, because a conspiracy is a secret agreement to commit a crime, and this crime is right out in the open. Millions of people killed for fun and profit. Not that there weren't other conspiracies as well.

Abe , April 18, 2019 at 23:23

Behind the Omar Outrage: Suppressed History of the pro-Israel Lobby

Max Blumenthal's article and his 2019 book, The Management of Savagery: How America's National Security State Fueled the Rise of Al Qaeda, ISIS, and Donald Trump (2019), is an impressive exercise in burying the leads.

Blumenthal does chronicle a decades-long panoply of active measures by numerous pro-Israel Lobby figures, groups and think tanks. Yet he fails to explicitly recognize the connection between pro-Israel Lobby efforts and the covert operations and overt invasions of America's national security state.

Julian Assange of Wikileaks was more explicit. Assange named the "country that has interfered in U.S. elections, has endangered Americans living or working overseas and has corrupted America's legislative and executive branches. It has exploited that corruption to initiate legislation favorable to itself, has promoted unnecessary and unwinnable wars and has stolen American technology and military secrets. Its ready access to the mainstream media to spread its own propaganda provides it with cover for its actions and it accomplishes all that and more through the agency of a powerful and well-funded domestic lobby [ ] That country is, of course, Israel."

frank scott , April 18, 2019 at 22:55

i really like her and support her but if she just had the good sense to have simply said "some people did something terrible" none of the present chapter of "islamophobia" would be acted out..no matter how much we think we know about the real truth(?) what happened that day did not blow up the white house, congress or the ruling class of america but nearly three thousand pretty ordinary folks yes, just like what "we" do repeatedly, but nevertheless, and considering the overwhelming mind fuck that went on with replaying the tragedy on tv for days so that millions across the nation were put in shock, we need to be just a little more considerate and possibly understanding both about how many people might feel and how some people might use any opportunity to perform this second rate islamophobia, which is a tiny fractional form of the original monstrous behavior that has destroyed nations, governments and millions of people in the islamic world..that is islamophobia, not the reactionary crap that passes for it which should be as understandable – under the circumstances – as terrorism!

Zhu , April 18, 2019 at 22:32

It should have been obvious that our government had made enemies around the world & that some would attempt revenge some day. Instead, we all thought that what we did to other people could never happen to us.

Joe Tedesky , April 18, 2019 at 21:41

This is a must read for the skeptics who doubt any questioning of the official 9/11 Commission Report. This investigative reporting by Max Blumenthal is another good reason to read the Consortium.

hetro , April 18, 2019 at 17:18

Max Blumenthal's emphasis on "somebody did something" in echo to Ilhan Omar's comments, plus his emphasis on what has been "suppressed," will hopefully lead on to further disclosures of what took place for the 9/11 event.

Anyone who watches the Omar video will see she is mainly emphasizing a disgraceful demonizing of Muslims in general. Additionally, what has brought on all the hatred to her, she did not speak with the "quasi-theological understanding" that demands the official narrative, with hushed tones, while speaking of the event:

Max Blumenthal above:

". . . by reinforcing the quasi-theological understanding of 9/11 that leaves anti-Muslim narratives unchallenged. "The memory of 9/11 is sacred ground, and any discussion of it must be done with reverence," insisted House Speaker Nancy Pelosi."

It would be a fine thing for CN, despite Mr. Parry's former reservations, to open up enquiry into further discussion of what has been "suppressed"–or at the very least to the very serious questions that have not yet been answered on that horrible day.

OlyaPola , April 18, 2019 at 14:17

"Trump's demagogic ploy with the freshman lawmaker raises the more serious question of who and what led to the "Day of Planes," writes Max Blumenthal."

All processes of suppression tend to spread that which is being suppresed facilitating de-suppression of much that is being suppressed leaving a residual.

Framing and access to sources may continue the lack of perception of this residual and hence facilitate misrepresentation through ommission.

"Back in 1979, some people initiated a multi-billion-dollar covert operation to trap the Red Army in Afghanistan and bleed the Soviet Union at its soft underbelly."

Restriction of frame is a tool of obfuscation and choice of point of initiation a tool of misrepresentation.

During the early 1970's due to internal factors primarily but not wholly in the period of 1964 to 1970, the Politburo of the Soviet Union agreed detente on the bases of spheres of influence with the United States of America facilitating the creation of a greater assay of and reliance upon the US dollar fiat currency, further butressed by commodity arrangements including but not restricted to the petro-dollar, in part to underpin the United States of America economic recovery including recovering their control over their perceived threats within their sphere of influence, particularly but not exclusively Japan.

In reaction/attempt at circumvention in 1973 Mitsui-Mitsubishi representing the zaibatsu sought to jointly develop the Trans-Siberian railway, the port of Nahodka and other industrial options including in Japan primarily in Northern Honshu and in Hokkaido with the Soviet Union but this project was terminated by the Politburo, the reason given being potential threats from China after confrontation including on the Amur and the need to build BAM (Baikal-Amur Railway) to the north of the Trans-Siberian Railway – the projects rejected were ancestor of the present OBOR project with differing participants re-explored from 1993 onwards.

These opportunities and trajectories in the 1970's were explained to the Politburo in the 1970's but rejected by the Politburo.

The Soviet Union was invited into Afghanistan by the Afghani government and hence never "invaded" Afghanistan.

The Politburo accepted the invitation of the Afghani government despite the advice of those practiced in strategic evaluation – the illusion that the Politburo was practiced in strategic evaluation endured in an ideological half-life post August 1968 but increasingly was ignored in practice.

During the 1970's there was an oscillating aspect of contrariness and attempt to regain perceived control in many of the decision of the Politburo led by the man who loved medals and awards Mr. Brezhnev.

Consequently the Politburo and the Soviet Union was complicit in facilitating opportunities for " Back in 1979, some people initiated a multi-billion-dollar covert operation to trap the Red Army in Afghanistan and bleed the Soviet Union at its soft underbelly."

However the targets of these operations were not restricted to the Soviet Union but included as part of an ongoing "strategy" "to underpin the United States of America economic recovery/maintainence including recovering/maintaining their control over their perceived threats within their sphere of influence, particularly but not exclusively Japan." and the location of these efforts were chosen the middle of Central Asia in reaction to experiences in Vietnam, Saudi Arabia and Israel post 1973.

The above are necessarily thumbnails in confirmation and extension of the not widely perceived causation/facilitation/ history/trajectories/time horizons which may aid perception, as may testing the hypotheses that Ms. Omar is being attacked for challenging myth irrespective of which myth she attempts to challenge.

[Apr 19, 2019] Osama bin laden and 9/11 -- flimsy connection

Apr 19, 2019 | consortiumnews.com

Zach , April 18, 2019 at 13:15

Osama Bin Laden was unofficially convicted of the attacks within a time frame that could not possibly have allowed any intelligence to have been gathered which supported the accusation. That is, it would be impossible if they did not already have that information. How could they have had no warning of an operation, which must have been very difficult to keep under wraps, but then be able to name the culprit in less than a day And if they had some forewarning of the attack, even if it was not specific, then it raises even more questions about government agencies complicity.

From day one, there has not been a shred of publicly available evidence against Bin Laden. Up until mid December, there was nothing but the continued repetition of his name. The official documents detailing allegations against Bin Laden provide no convincing evidence. Of the 69 points of "evidence" cited, ten relate to background information about the relationship between Bin Laden and the Taliban. Fifteen relate to background information regarding the general philosophies of Al Qeada, and it's relationship to Bin Laden. None give any facts concerning the events of 9/11. Most do not even attempt to directly relate anything mentioned to the events of that day. Twenty-six list allegations related to previous terrorist attacks. Even if they were convictions of previous terrorist attacks, everybody knows that this isn't worth the paper it's written on, in terms of evidence for involvement of September 11th.

Within less than four hours of the attacks taking place, the media were fed comments, which assumed Bin Laden's guilt, comments made on the basis of events, which could not possibly have occurred. The Pentagon and the Department of Defense used dialogue attributed to Bin Laden, in an effort to incriminate him, while refusing to release all of the dialogue, and refusing to issue a verbatim, literal translation.

When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on the FBI's web page, Rex Tomb, the FBI's Chief of Investigative Publicity, is reported to have said, "The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden's Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11."

In the months leading up to the Septmber 11, 2001 attack, it is reported, the Taliban "outlined various ways bin Laden could be dealt with. He could be turned over to the EU, killed by the Taliban, or made available as a target for Cruise missiles." The Bush administration did not accept the Taliban's offer.

On September 16, 2001, CNN reported that in a statement issued to Al Jazeera, bin Laden said, "I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the recent attacks".

"On September 20, 2001," according to the Guardian, "the Taliban offered to hand Osama bin Laden to a neutral Islamic country for trial if the US presented them with evidence that he was responsible for the attacks on New York and Washington. The US rejected the offer."

Bin Laden, in a September 28, 2001 interview with the Pakistani newspaper Ummat, is reported to have said:

"I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of a battle."

October 3,2001: Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, in an interview today with The New York Times, said administration officials had been briefing allies on what he called "pretty good information" establishing the link between the airplane attacks and Mr. Bin Laden. But, he added,"it is not evidence in the form of a court case."

One Western official at NATO said the briefings, which were oral, without slides or documents, did not report any direct order from Mr. Bin Laden, nor did they indicate that the Taliban knew about the attacks before they happened.

A senior diplomat for one closely allied nation
characterized the briefing as containing"nothing
particularly new or surprising,"adding:"It was
descriptive and narrative rather than forensic. There
was no attempt to build a legal case.

https://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/03/world/a-nation-challenged-the-evidence-nato-says-us-has-proof-against-bin-laden-group.html

[Apr 17, 2019] Never underestimate the CIA by Nancy O'Brien Simpson

"Many in the USA have come to realize this stealth organization does not work on the behalf of the USA but rather to its own ends."
CIA probably was involved in Skripals false flag operation as well. Because the behaviour of Theresa May suggest that she from the very beginning was sure about the USA full and unconditional support and putting pressure on EU allies. Then now we know that Gina Haspel, who was also involved in Steele dossier and handled most oversees assets involved in entrapment of Trump, misled Trump and pervaded him to expel 80 Russian diplomats.
Notable quotes:
"... Then there is 9/11. This one also has a USA government narrative that defies logic. This time it is so blatant and egregious that an organization called "Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth" was founded by Richard Gage, an architect with vast experience in steel structured buildings and fire. The organization demands on official investigation by Congress into exactly how the buildings came down. ..."
"... According to a statement reported by the BBC , Loose Change film producer Dylan Avery thinks the destruction of the building was suspicious because it housed some unusual tenants, including a clandestine CIA office on the 25th floor, an outpost of the U.S. Secret Service, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and New York City's emergency command center." Wikipedia ..."
"... So now we have Prime Minister, Teresa May, accusing Putin and Russia of the May 4 nerve agent attack of Sergei V. Skripal (66) and his daughter, Yulia (33), in Salibury, England. Both are in critical condition after being found unconscious on a bench outside The Maltings Shopping Center in Salibury. As we all know Russia is the new Antichrist. The harbinger of all evil. The enemy we all must view with the utmost fear and loathing. Daily, the MSM in USA recoils as they report story after story of Russia meddling in our elections, shaking the very foundations of our democracy. ..."
"... Let's get this straight. Mr. Skripal was convicted of high treason in Russia in 2004. He was not tortured, killed or murdered, rather he was allowed to settle in Britain after a spy swap in 2010. Sounds pretty friendly to me, considering that Putin is portrayed as a sadistic monster out to settle scores with those who cross him, by the Western media. ..."
"... So, why now? Why this attempted assassination now? This is the question, dear reader. Why attempt to assassinate Mr. Skripal now? He was convicted of high treason 14 years ago. He has been in England for eight years. Russia knew at this point he was no threat to them with no new secrets to betray. What would be gained at this point by assassinating the man? ..."
"... None. However, if the CIA took him out, or paid unscrupulous foreign mercenaries to take him out, much could be gained. The narrative of big bad Putin, in his big bad Russia, would be reinforced. Now, not only is he meddling in elections, getting the dastardly Trump elected, he is using nerve gas to take out enemies on foreign soil. My god, what will be next? ..."
"... "If we don't take immediate concrete measures to address this now, Salisbury will not be the last place we see chemical weapons used," said Haley. "They could be used here in New York or in cities of any country that sits on this council." CNN Politics ..."
Mar 18, 2018 | www.veteranstoday.com

Many in the USA have come to realize this stealth organization does not work on the behalf of the USA but rather to its own ends. And, in this realization, comes a jaded view of both the CIA and the government it represents.

This realization may have begun with the assassination of John F. Kennedy. The Warren Commission, a congressional investigation was convened. The commission concluded there was a single lone shooter, a fringe outcast, Lee Harvey Oswald who acted alone in the assassination of the president. Many felt, in light of the facts, that the Warren Commission was a cover up of what really went down on November 22, 1963, in Houston, Texas.

In 1976, the Congress reopened the Kennedy investigation. They created The United States House of Representatives Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) to investigate the assassination of John F. Kennedy (and Martin Luther King Jr.).

The HSCA completed its investigation in 1978 and determined the Warren Commission was faulty and there was more than one shooter and there was indeed a conspiracy to kill the president. So much for the official narrative of the Warren Commission.

Why the Warren Commission cover up back then that even the Congress in 1976 (HSCA) reported was bogus? One theory April 25, 1966, The New York Times wrote, "And, President Kennedy, as the enormity of the Bay of Pigs disaster came home to him, said to one of the highest officials of his Administration, that he wanted to splinter the C.I.A. in a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds."

Kennedy was no fan of the Director of the C.I.A. Allen Dulles or his agency, and in the autumn of 1961 he purged the C.I.A. of Dulles and his entourage. This included Deputy Director for Plans Richard M. Bissell Jr. and and Deputy Director Charles Cabell. You do not mess with Allen Dulles and the C.I A. Let's leave it at that. Kennedy was dead within two years.

Then there is 9/11. This one also has a USA government narrative that defies logic. This time it is so blatant and egregious that an organization called "Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth" was founded by Richard Gage, an architect with vast experience in steel structured buildings and fire. The organization demands on official investigation by Congress into exactly how the buildings came down.

By December 2014, over 2,300 architectural and engineering professionals had signed a petition for this investigation. If one looks at controlled demolitions and how the buildings actually came down it is obvious the collapse was not due to an airplane flying into the buildings, but rather a controlled demolition. 2,300 architects and engineers with verified credentials all testify that the narrative of the government is patently false and scientifically implausible if not impossible.

At about nine a.m. the Twin Towers are crashed into and collapse. At about five twenty p.m. that same day, Building Seven collapses. No planes fly into Building 7, it just collapses. Again, the videos show a controlled demolition.

There are various theories as to why 7 WTC was taken down. Theories range from 7 WTC being the operation center for the demolition of the Twin Towers to more nefarious motives. "

According to a statement reported by the BBC , Loose Change film producer Dylan Avery thinks the destruction of the building was suspicious because it housed some unusual tenants, including a clandestine CIA office on the 25th floor, an outpost of the U.S. Secret Service, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and New York City's emergency command center." Wikipedia

What is important to remember is that NO STEEL FRAME HIGH RISE HAS EVER TOTALLY COLLAPSED DUE TO FIRE.

These are but two examples of hundreds where we have been mislead by the official narrative of the government and its MSM news. Remember the Trump Dossier that was leaked and printed as fact? Or, the death of Seth Rich, a "botched" robbery? Or, the list of 200 news outlets in the USA that were Russian Propaganda fronts? All reported as fact by the New York Times and Washington Post. All fake news by the MSM fed to an unsuspecting American people.

So now we have Prime Minister, Teresa May, accusing Putin and Russia of the May 4 nerve agent attack of Sergei V. Skripal (66) and his daughter, Yulia (33), in Salibury, England. Both are in critical condition after being found unconscious on a bench outside The Maltings Shopping Center in Salibury. As we all know Russia is the new Antichrist. The harbinger of all evil. The enemy we all must view with the utmost fear and loathing. Daily, the MSM in USA recoils as they report story after story of Russia meddling in our elections, shaking the very foundations of our democracy.

Let's get this straight. Mr. Skripal was convicted of high treason in Russia in 2004. He was not tortured, killed or murdered, rather he was allowed to settle in Britain after a spy swap in 2010. Sounds pretty friendly to me, considering that Putin is portrayed as a sadistic monster out to settle scores with those who cross him, by the Western media.

Teresa May called the act "reckless" and "indiscriminate", and basically said Putin put innocent English bystanders at risk. She upped the ante by dismissing 23 Russian diplomats, the largest such expulsion in thirty years.

On Thursday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov accused May of grandstanding in her response to the incident. Russian news agency Interfax reported that The Kremlin denies involvement in the nerve agent poisoning, insisting one motive was to complicate Russia's hosting of the World Cup this summer. Ah, dear Kremin, the motive was much deeper than the World Cup games, which were only a bonus to the attack.

So, why now? Why this attempted assassination now? This is the question, dear reader. Why attempt to assassinate Mr. Skripal now? He was convicted of high treason 14 years ago. He has been in England for eight years. Russia knew at this point he was no threat to them with no new secrets to betray. What would be gained at this point by assassinating the man?

None. However, if the CIA took him out, or paid unscrupulous foreign mercenaries to take him out, much could be gained. The narrative of big bad Putin, in his big bad Russia, would be reinforced. Now, not only is he meddling in elections, getting the dastardly Trump elected, he is using nerve gas to take out enemies on foreign soil. My god, what will be next?

Nikki Haley, Ambassador to the UN tells us, "The United States of America believes that Russia is responsible for the attack on two people in the United Kingdom using a military-grade nerve agent," Haley said in her remarks at a UN Security Council emergency session, blasting the Russian government for flouting international law.

"If we don't take immediate concrete measures to address this now, Salisbury will not be the last place we see chemical weapons used," said Haley. "They could be used here in New York or in cities of any country that sits on this council." CNN Politics

The USA needs an enemy to foment fear to justify it's astronomical defense budget. It just loves a good cold war. However, now that Russia is no longer a pinko commie nation to be demonized, and is indeed a capitalist democracy, we have to resurrect a new straw man to hate.

It is remarkable the degree to which the liberal left has bought into this industrial-military-complex narrative. The USA always has to be bombing someone, droning someone or napalming someone to keep the monies flowing into the defense budget. Take a look at our spending compared to Russia or other nations.

Alas, it is certainly not out of the question that the CIA was behind the attack. After this amount of time Mr. Putin had nothing to gain in assassinating Mr. Skripal and his daughter. In fact, he had a lot to lose. The CIA? They had a lot to gain, and nothing to lose. Never underestimate the CIA and its brilliance in setting the narrative for its agenda. And, never underestimate Mr. Putin in his resolve not to become their lapdog.

Ms. Simpson was a radio personality in New York. She was a staff writer for The Liberty Report. A PBS documentary was done on her activism for human rights. She is a psychotherapist and political commentator.

[Apr 16, 2019] NYU Prof When Did The Memory Of 9-11 Become Sacred

The real question is: Was 9/11 a false flag operation? If so by whom? Actions of the Bush II administration (and especially Cheney) during and after 9/11 were very suspicious (destruction of the crime scene, finding passport of one of hijacker in the rubble, treatment of captured Israel spies (Five Dancing Israelis Arrested On 9-11 - YouTube) , evacuation of Saudi nationals, etc). Ventura's take on 9-11 'They wanted it to happen' - YouTube. Also Former Governor Jesse Ventura Picks Fight With Feds Over 9-11 (04.04.11) - YouTube
And then the mystery of Building 7 collapse remains unsolved...
Notable quotes:
"... As a firsthand, first-person survivor of the 9/11, I can attest to the fact that neither the federal, nor the state, nor the local bureaucracies , nor the media ever treated me like a saint or with any particular sense of extra respect. If anything, at times I felt like a piece of dirt. And when Larry Silverstein was allowed to rebuild the tower, I literally felt like a piece of dog **** in the rain. ..."
"... The sudden hagiography and idol worship of 9/11 in the tweets of Our Beloved Fearless Leader is beyond ridiculous. If he didn't become a president and was forced to show a modicum of decorum and finesse (which fit him like Victoria's Secret wonderbra fits a rubber chicken), the guy probably wouldn't know what 9/11 was. ..."
"... As much as I detest Ilhan Omar's thinly-veiled jihadist views, on this she is 100% correct. Some people did something on 9/11. And the reason why it is "some people" and not "this and this person" is that our government STILL, nearly 20 years after the fact, will not openly admit that our beloved Saudi allies (and their allies, whom we shall not mention here for rather obvious reasons) stood behind the worst terror attacks in our history. ..."
"... Trump shouldn't be tweeting or anything else relating to Sept 11, 2001 until every detail of the truth is disclosed publicly and all actually involved and responsible are held fully accountable publicly. He's dishonoring any sacredness of honoring those murdered that day and since as a result of that day by doing so. Another so called campaign promise biting the dust. ..."
"... Omar is absolutely right - on 9/11 "some people" did do something, but it definitely was not 19 Saudi nationals with box cutters, and Americans have been losing their civil right en masse ever since. For someone like Rep Crenshaw to realize the truth about 911 would be way too much for him to handle. ..."
Apr 16, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com

Authored by John Hasson via Campus Reform,

Talia Lavin, a professor of journalism at New York University, came under fire for tweeting "When did the memory of 9/11 become 'sacred'? In what way? And to whom?" on Saturday.

Lavin 's remark came in the wake of the controversy over Minnesota Democrat Rep. Ilhan Omar's decision to refer to the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001, with "some people did something."

Many people across the country, including President Trump, have condemned Omar for her seemingly dismissive words.

"I meant this as a genuine question. it was indisputably tragic, world-changing, evil and despicable, and a turning point of history," Lavin later remarked .

"But 'sacred' is a particular word with its own religious meanings, and i wanted to pinpoint what it means to call such a day 'sacred' specifically."

After President Trump tweeted a video alternating between Omar's comments and scenes of the destruction caused by the attacks, Ms. Lavin responded by saying "the campaign to get ilhan omar murdered continues apace," before then asking how the terrorist attack became regarded as a sacred memory.

According to CNN , 2,977 people died in the four attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. The victims ranged from two years old to eighty-five years old and included 403 firefighters and police officers.

When Republican Rep. Dan Crenshaw criticized supporters of Rep. Omar for questioning his devotion to 9/11 victims, Ms. Lavin responded to his tweet on Friday, saying: "the real victim, captain shithead, speaks," according to The Washington Examiner .


Omega_Man , 16 seconds ago link

911 inside job

PeaceForWorld , 3 minutes ago link

Levin is another Zionist Joooo that is trying to cover up 9/11 attack as Israhelli planned job. I don't agree with Congresswoman Omar on everything. But at least she spit out the truth ONCE AGAIN! Thank you!

passerby , 9 minutes ago link

Sacred is a tactic to protect a lie.

costa ludus , 11 minutes ago link

I lost interest in 9-11 and the BS accompanying it about a week after it happened

One of We , 13 minutes ago link

"According to CNN...." Didn't need to read any further.

Groundround , 15 minutes ago link

I'm a little tired of the military *** kissing. I didn't ask anyone to join and they sure as **** didn't fight for my rights. That battle was lost right here in the states. At this point I consider military service to be collaboration with the enemy. You joined up, you got your *** blown off so someone could get rich. Don't expect me to bow and scrape for ******** stories about your loyalty and honor.

DEDA CVETKO , 19 minutes ago link

As a firsthand, first-person survivor of the 9/11, I can attest to the fact that neither the federal, nor the state, nor the local bureaucracies , nor the media ever treated me like a saint or with any particular sense of extra respect. If anything, at times I felt like a piece of dirt. And when Larry Silverstein was allowed to rebuild the tower, I literally felt like a piece of dog **** in the rain.

The sudden hagiography and idol worship of 9/11 in the tweets of Our Beloved Fearless Leader is beyond ridiculous. If he didn't become a president and was forced to show a modicum of decorum and finesse (which fit him like Victoria's Secret wonderbra fits a rubber chicken), the guy probably wouldn't know what 9/11 was.

As much as I detest Ilhan Omar's thinly-veiled jihadist views, on this she is 100% correct. Some people did something on 9/11. And the reason why it is "some people" and not "this and this person" is that our government STILL, nearly 20 years after the fact, will not openly admit that our beloved Saudi allies (and their allies, whom we shall not mention here for rather obvious reasons) stood behind the worst terror attacks in our history.

TotalMachineFail, 22 minutes ago

Trump shouldn't be tweeting or anything else relating to Sept 11, 2001 until every detail of the truth is disclosed publicly and all actually involved and responsible are held fully accountable publicly. He's dishonoring any sacredness of honoring those murdered that day and since as a result of that day by doing so. Another so called campaign promise biting the dust.

RubblesVodka, 25 minutes ago

Whats even crazier about this day is that most in America don't even want an investigation of what happened on 9.11. Bank robberies gave had a more thorough investigation than 9.11 and that's insane.

marysimmons, 27 minutes ago

Rep Crenshaw sounds like a decent, honorable man. Sorry he lost his eye serving in a war designed to enrich military contractors, allow the CIA to get back control of the poppy fields, and allow the Dept of War to establish large permanent military bases just to the east of Iran, the ultimate target.

Omar is absolutely right - on 9/11 "some people" did do something, but it definitely was not 19 Saudi nationals with box cutters, and Americans have been losing their civil right en masse ever since. For someone like Rep Crenshaw to realize the truth about 911 would be way too much for him to handle.

[Mar 20, 2019] The Mysterious Collapse of WTC Building 7

Is this a plan of the elite to introduce national security state in action. Are they afraid of the collapse of neoliberal social order and try to take precautions?
Notable quotes:
"... These factors would have resulted in the structural framing furthest from the flames remaining intact and possessing its full structural integrity, i.e., strength and stiffness. ..."
"... the superstructure above would begin to lean in the direction of the burning side. ..."
"... Nevertheless, the ultimate failure mode would have been a toppling of the upper floors to one side-much like the topping of a tall redwood tree-not a concentric, vertical collapse. ..."
"... no molten metal ..."
"... A reporter with rare access to the debris at ground zero "descended deep below street level to areas where underground fires still burned and steel flowed in molten streams." ..."
"... Please remember that firefighters sprayed millions of gallons of water on the fires, and also applied high-tech fire retardants. Specifically, 4 million gallons of water were dropped on Ground Zero within the first 10 days after September 11, according to the U.S. Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratories : ..."
"... Why would the Insiders bother blowing Building 7? Indeed, why would the Insiders bother with WTC at all? Exactly what were the motivations of the Insiders supposed to be? ..."
"... Larry Silverstein had a magic ball that told him to insure the buildings for "terrorist attacks". In February of 2002, Silverstein was awarded $861,000,000 for his insurance claims from Industrial Risk Insurers. His initial investment in WTC 7 was only $386,000,000. ..."
"... Perhaps after the first couple of attempted attacks on the WTC in the 90's they had a good look at what would happen if an attack was successful. Perhaps they then decided that the massive collateral damage from a partial or messy collapse could be greatly reduced by having the buildings ready to be brought down in a controlled way. ..."
"... All this would have to be kept secret as noone would work in a building lined with explosives. However the insurance companies, and the owner of the building would know, and this would explain the comments made by silverstein (comments that he himself never clarified). ..."
"... This may all be completely wrong, but lets face it, explosives did bring these buildings down. ..."
"... http://topdocumentaryfilms.com ...How about a 5 hour video that methodically refutes and explains the flaws of virtually every aspect of the 'official story', in particular the shamefully flawed NIST report ..."
"... There were no pyroclastic flows at WTC. That's obvious by the fact that pieces of intact paper lay everywhere, something that would be impossible if a hot cloud covered the area. ..."
"... The reason that you have to resort to esoteric explanations for what happened at WTC is that you believe lies about what happened at WTC. ..."
"... If you really believe that this was done by hydrocarbon based fires begun by burning jet fuel you are beyond hopeless. ..."
"... Why do you trust the government so much? That to me is idiotic. History has proven pretty much every government to be corrupt. It's sheep like you that allow them to get away with it. Just keep walking sheep, don't want to fall back from the mob. ..."
"... The "accepted scholarship" is conducted almost entirely by government shills for the benefit of dumbed down Americans whose information intake is limited to Fox, CNN, and MSNBC. ..."
Sep 15, 2012 | WashingtonsBlog

... ... ...

What Do the Experts Say?

What does the evidence show about the Solomon Brothers Building in Manhattan?

Numerous structural engineers – the people who know the most about office building vulnerabilities and accidents – say that the official explanation of why building 7 at the World Trade Center collapsed on 9/11 is "impossible", "defies common logic" and "violates the law of physics":

The collapse of WTC7 looks like it may have been the result of a controlled demolition. This should have been looked into as part of the original investigation

Photos of the steel, evidence about how the buildings collapsed, the unexplainable collapse of WTC 7, evidence of thermite in the debris as well as several other red flags, are quite troubling indications of well planned and controlled demolition

In my view, the chances of the three buildings collapsing symmetrically into their own footprint, at freefall speed, by any other means than by controlled demolition, are so remote that there is no other plausible explanation

Near-freefall collapse violates laws of physics. Fire induced collapse is not consistent with observed collapse mode . . . .

How did the structures collapse in near symmetrical fashion when the apparent precipitating causes were asymmetrical loading? The collapses defies common logic from an elementary structural engineering perspective.

***

Heat transmission (diffusion) through the steel members would have been irregular owing to differing sizes of the individual members; and, the temperature in the members would have dropped off precipitously the further away the steel was from the flames-just as the handle on a frying pan doesn't get hot at the same rate as the pan on the burner of the stove. These factors would have resulted in the structural framing furthest from the flames remaining intact and possessing its full structural integrity, i.e., strength and stiffness.

Structural steel is highly ductile, when subjected to compression and bending it buckles and bends long before reaching its tensile or shear capacity. Under the given assumptions, "if" the structure in the vicinity started to weaken, the superstructure above would begin to lean in the direction of the burning side. The opposite, intact, side of the building would resist toppling until the ultimate capacity of the structure was reached, at which point, a weak-link failure would undoubtedly occur. Nevertheless, the ultimate failure mode would have been a toppling of the upper floors to one side-much like the topping of a tall redwood tree-not a concentric, vertical collapse.

For this reason alone, I rejected the official explanation for the collapse .

We design and analyze buildings for the overturning stability to resist the lateral loads with the combination of the gravity loads. Any tall structure failure mode would be a fall over to its side. It is impossible that heavy steel columns could collapse at the fraction of the second within each story and subsequently at each floor below.We do not know the phenomenon of the high rise building to disintegrate internally faster than the free fall of the debris coming down from the top.

The engineering science and the law of physics simply doesn't know such possibility. Only very sophisticated controlled demolition can achieve such result, eliminating the natural dampening effect of the structural framing huge mass that should normally stop the partial collapse. The pancake theory is a fallacy, telling us that more and more energy would be generated to accelerate the collapse. Where would such energy would be coming from?

Fire and impact were insignificant in all three buildings [Again, please ignore any reference to the Twin Towers this essay focuses solely on WTC7]. Impossible for the three to collapse at free-fall speed. Laws of physics were not suspended on 9/11, unless proven otherwise

The symmetrical "collapse" due to asymmetrical damage is at odds with the principles of structural mechanics

It is virtually impossible for WTC building 7 to collapse as it did with the influence of sporadic fires. This collapse HAD to be planned

It is very suspicious that fire brought down Building 7 yet the Madrid hotel fire was still standing after 24 hours of fire. This is very suspicious to me because I design buildings for a living

The above is just a sample. Many other structural engineers have questioned the collapse of Building 7, as have numerous top experts in other relevant disciplines, including:

The collapse was too symmetrical to have been eccentrically generated. The destruction was symmetrically initiated to cause the buildings to implode as they did

Watch this short video on Building 7 by Architects and Engineers (ignore any reference to the Twin Towers, deaths on 9/11, or any other topics other than WTC7):

Fish In a Barrel

Poking holes in the government's spin on Building 7 is so easy that it is like shooting fish in a barrel.

As just one example, the spokesman for the government agency which says that the building collapsed due to fire said there was no molten metal at ground zero:


The facts are a wee bit different:

Please remember that firefighters sprayed millions of gallons of water on the fires, and also applied high-tech fire retardants. Specifically, 4 million gallons of water were dropped on Ground Zero within the first 10 days after September 11, according to the U.S. Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratories:

Approximately three million gallons of water were hosed on site in the fire-fighting efforts, and 1 million gallons fell as rainwater, between 9/11 and 9/21 .

The spraying continued for months afterward (the 10 day period was simply the timeframe in which the DOE was sampling). Enormous amounts of water were hosed on Ground Zero continuously, day and night:

"Firetrucks [sprayed] a nearly constant jet of water on [ground zero]. You couldn't even begin to imagine how much water was pumped in there," said Tom Manley of the Uniformed Firefighters Association, the largest fire department union. "It was like you were creating a giant lake."

This photograph may capture a sense of how wet the ground became due to the constant spraying:

murphy Arguments Regarding the Collapse of the World Trade Center Evaporate Upon Inspection
In addition, the fires were sprayed with thousands of gallons of high tech fire-retardants.

The fact that there were raging fires and molten metal even after the application of massive quantities of water and fire retardants shows how silly the government spokesman's claim is.

Again, this has nothing to do with "inside job" no one was killed in the collapse of Building 7, no wars were launched based on a rallying cry of "remember the Solomon Brothers building", and no civil liberties were lost based on a claim that we have to prevent future WTC7 tragedies.

It is merely meant to show that government folks sometimes lie even about issues tangentially related to 9/11.

Pooua > Wolfen Batroach • 2 years ago

Why would the Insiders bother blowing Building 7? Indeed, why would the Insiders bother with WTC at all? Exactly what were the motivations of the Insiders supposed to be?

JusticeFor911 > Pooua

Larry Silverstein had a magic ball that told him to insure the buildings for "terrorist attacks". In February of 2002, Silverstein was awarded $861,000,000 for his insurance claims from Industrial Risk Insurers. His initial investment in WTC 7 was only $386,000,000.

I'd say nearly half of $1,000,000,000.00 was the primary cause to include this building with the towers. Keep in mind that President Bush's brother Marvin was a principal in the company Securacom that provided security for the WTC, United Airlines and Dulles International Airport. Are dots connecting yet?

Pooua > JusticeFor911

If you buy a new car, you take out full coverage insurance on it. Insuring billion-dollar buildings is standard procedure, especially when one had already suffered a terrorist attack. You insinuation is nothing but gossip and suggestion.

No, Securacom did not provide security for WTC; that's the job of the Port Authority of NY & NJ. Securacom had a contract to perform a limited service for PANYNJ, and Marvin Bush was only a bit player (he was on the board of directors) in the company. Your paranoid ramblings are lies.

IBSHILLIN > Pooua

Perhaps after the first couple of attempted attacks on the WTC in the 90's they had a good look at what would happen if an attack was successful. Perhaps they then decided that the massive collateral damage from a partial or messy collapse could be greatly reduced by having the buildings ready to be brought down in a controlled way.

All this would have to be kept secret as noone would work in a building lined with explosives. However the insurance companies, and the owner of the building would know, and this would explain the comments made by silverstein (comments that he himself never clarified).

This may all be completely wrong, but lets face it, explosives did bring these buildings down.

Pooua > IBSHILLIN

I find it amazing that you consider yourself such an unquestionable expert that you not only feel qualified to insist that explosives brought down the WTC buildings, even in contradiction to scores of scientists, engineers and investigators of NIST, FEMA, FBI and MIT who say otherwise, and you do so without offering any evidence at all to support your bizarre claim.

No building the size of any of the WTC buildings has ever been brought down by controlled demolition, but of those that come closest, the planning took years, and the rigging took months of hard work by teams of experts working around the clock. This is not something that can be hidden.

Your suggestion is entirely preposterous and without merit.

ihaveabrain > Pooua

explain this? You are smarter than these experts? http://www.hulu.com/watch/4120...

NIST, FEMA, FBI and MIT are worthless entities! What about the experts in that documentary? Nanothermite brought them down smart guy!

Pooua > ihaveabrain • 25 days ago

You posted a 1.5-hour video. I am not here to watch a 1.5-hour video; I'm here to discuss the topic of the collapse of WTC 7. If you have something to say, say it here.

NIST has been the premier standards body used by the US government for a century, covering virtually every aspect of engineering and public safety in this country. It employes thousands of scientists, engineers and technicians. For you to claim that it is a worthless entity is idiocy on your part.

linked1 > Pooua • 24 days ago

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com ...How about a 5 hour video that methodically refutes and explains the flaws of virtually every aspect of the 'official story', in particular the shamefully flawed NIST report

You claim to want to discuss the topic of the collapse of WTC-7 but you can't be bothered to watch painstakingly researched documentaries that include thousands of witnesses, victims, scientists, and structural professionals.

You ought to educate yourself before calling other's claims 'worthless idiocy'. You are wrong, and history will prove you wrong.

Pooua > linked1

I've been reading arguments about 9/11 for two years. I've been arguing about other issues for the last 25 years, at least since I took a class in classical logic. What you need to understand is, you aren't arguing anything when you send me off to listen to someone else. The other guy might be arguing something, but you aren't doing anything. And, the fact that I've spent two years reading everything I could find on the subject makes me strongly suspect that this five-hour video would be just a waste of my time.

If you want to discuss this matter, then discuss it. Don't send me off to spend hours of my time listening to someone else. You explain it. If you can't explain it, then you don't understand it, and you are wasting everyone's time.

mulegino1 . > Pooua

The levels of energy required to turn most of the Twin Towers and WTC7 into nanoparticles (thus the pyrocastic flow which only occurs in volcanic eruptions and nuclear detonations) would be thousands of orders of magnitude greater than airliner impacts and hydrocarbon based office fires, which are claimed to have initiated a "gravity collapse".

How could a "gravity collapse" perfectly mimic the detonation of a small tactical nuclear device or devices-electromagnetic pulse, molten lava and a mushroom cloud?

Pooua > mulegino1

I want you to look at this image from the WTC on 9/11. It shows the debris after the Towers collapsed. Does this look like nanoparticles to you? Most of the debris was bigger than a man's fist.

Thumbnail

There were no pyroclastic flows at WTC. That's obvious by the fact that pieces of intact paper lay everywhere, something that would be impossible if a hot cloud covered the area.

The reason that you have to resort to esoteric explanations for what happened at WTC is that you believe lies about what happened at WTC.

mulegino1 . > Pooua

If you really believe that this was done by hydrocarbon based fires begun by burning jet fuel you are beyond hopeless.

There was indeed a pyroclasticas flow as anyone with youtube can determine for themselves.

Pooua > WilliamBinney • a year ago

It is your job to do more than make idiotic, speculative assertions and pretend that constitutes a reason for disregarding the government's account of the event. Yet, you all have completely failed to do anything except expose your own inability to account for the events of that day.

Dizzer13 > Pooua • a year ago

Why do you trust the government so much? That to me is idiotic. History has proven pretty much every government to be corrupt. It's sheep like you that allow them to get away with it. Just keep walking sheep, don't want to fall back from the mob.

mulegino1 . > Pooua • 2 years ago

The "accepted scholarship" is conducted almost entirely by government shills for the benefit of dumbed down Americans whose information intake is limited to Fox, CNN, and MSNBC.

The official narrative is so ludicrous from any standpoint that the "debunkers" resort to wildly implausible scenarios in order to convince the above cited demographic that the government and the major national media were reporting factual information when in fact they were reading from a script. And it was a very poorly written script. The Bin Laden bogeyman was already being invoked before the buildings exploded.

What you've got here is a pseudo-religious narrative designed to so enrage the dumbed down sheeple that they will lash out in their fury against virtually anyone designated by the powers that be as the enemy- a Sorelian myth.

Like any false narrative, the official story breaks down at the level of discrete facts and can only survive as a holistic mythologized, meta-historical events.

[Mar 08, 2019] Eyewitness of one of players involved exiting building 7 on the morning of 9/11.

Mar 08, 2019 | www.unz.com

Agent76 , says: March 8, 2019 at 2:42 am GMT

@onebornfree Here is a eyewitness of one of players involved exiting building 7 on the morning of.

May 25, 2014 FDNY 9/11 Survivor Witness and Whistleblower Speaks on WTC 7

Listen very carefully starting at the '20' second mark! As a firefighter on 9/11, he was at Ground Zero and was there when Building 7 came down.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/ePPdUUISQOs

[Feb 19, 2019] Iranian spying Or neocon 9-11 coverup by Kevin Barrett

Feb 19, 2019 | www.unz.com

Most of the US attendees might better be described as sincere American patriots. Former Senator Mike Gravel (D-Alaska), whom I personally recruited for the conference, is widely acknowledged as an all-American hero for his principled stance against the Vietnam war, his role in exposing the Pentagon Papers, and his courageous advocacy of 9/11 truth.

Merlin Miller, a family values oriented filmmaker who once ran for president, is another all-American hero who attended the Hollywoodism Conference. Merlin Miller's pro-American, anti-Zionist-Hollywood perspective is as patriotic as it gets.

And then there was Culture Wars editor E. Michael Jones, another conservative American patriot who wants to take his country back.

While all three all-American heroes are in varying degrees critical of Israel and its occupation of American politics and media, none could possibly be viewed as America haters.

Notes

[1] I was witch-hunted in 2006 by State Rep. Steve Nass for "teaching 9/11 conspiracy theories" at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. But in fact I had never done so, nor had I any plans to do so. While teaching African Studies, Folklore, and Religious Studies at the University of Wisconsin-Madison between 2001 and 2006, I had never once revealed to students my personal views of 9/11, nor did I ever discuss the research that gave rise to those views.

None of my students up to that point even knew what my views of 9/11 were, unless they had stumbled upon one of my occasional teach-ins, or read my published work on the issue, which I did not bring into the classroom.

Yet Stanley Fish lied brazenly about me in his NYT op-ed , libelously claiming: "Mr. Barrett, who has a one-semester contract to teach a course titled 'Islam: Religion and Culture' acknowledged on a radio talk show that he has shared with students his strong conviction that the destruction of the World Trade Center was an inside job perpetrated by the American government."

I immediately wrote to The New York Times urging them to correct their libelous error. They refused to do so. Instead, they published several other letters all taking for granted Fish's outrageous and utterly baseless lie.

[Feb 16, 2019] Two planes hit two towers and three towers fall down. You would not believe that if it were in a movie

Feb 16, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com

GoldenDonuts , 1 hour ago link

911 was the greatest false flag ever. Two planes hit two towers and three towers fall down. You would not believe that if it were in a movie. Then quick as a wink. It seemed like the "homeland security" legislation was already written. Poof there goes your civil rights, and your constitution is nothing but toilet paper.

911 and the Kennedy assassination need to be really investigated.

JBL , 42 minutes ago link

they spent more money on the lewinsky investigation than 9/11 + JFK's assassination combined

calito , 1 hour ago link

"And it couldn't have been headier, even after a tiny Islamist terror outfit hijacked four American jets and took out New York's World Trade Center and part of the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. "

BEEEEEEP!

Article immediately disqualified!

[Feb 04, 2019] Why the War on Conspiracy Theories is Bad Public Policy by Kevin Barrett

Feb 04, 2019 | www.unz.com

j2 , says: February 1, 2019 at 9:05 pm GMT

There is a simple explanation why a political scientist, who decided to study conspiracy theories, would not necessarily understand that the official explanation for 911 is physically impossible. From http://www.religjournal.com/pdf/ijrr10001.pdf

Dutton: "Intelligence and religious and political differences "
we can read the world of science: "but we know that even among elite academics, such as those at Cambridge University, social scientists (including political scientists) are less intelligent than are physical scientists."

OK, I know what you and I think of these fields of science, but the quoted claim is correct.

It always amazes me how some people claim to have studied the main conspiracy theories and still claim they are not correct (and strangely, they get lots of publicity). But Uscinsky's book seems to be focused on faked political conspiracies that US parties had used as tools in elections, so on not the old, real and true conspiracies, which include the rather recent WTC attack.

Godfree Roberts , says: February 2, 2019 at 3:27 am GMT
Imagine a 60 Minutes episode entirely devoted to investigating, say, 9/11 conspiracy theories that treats the government's account as just another conspiracy theory. The world's leading experts on each element would be present and viewers invited to text their questions.

What viewership would that program attract, if well marketed?

What are the odds of such a program airing?

How free is American media?

CanSpeccy , says: Website February 2, 2019 at 7:20 pm GMT

[If] 9/11 was in fact a US-Israeli false flag operation [the] 9/11 truth movement would be a threat not because it is wrong, but because it is right.

Why not just leave it at that.

There is no other reasonable hypothesis. The determination to shut down 9/11 Truth is the proof of its truth.

The Elite enjoy the privileges of elitehood only as long as they remain the Elite. Pleb. theories about a 9/11 inside job threaten the Elite's very existence, and indeed raise the prospect of hangings on Capitol Hill. Therefore, it is inevitable that 9/11 Truthism, and indeed 9/11 Truthers, will as necessary, be ruthlessly stomped upon, without the slightest regard for the rule of law.

For those with eyes to see, the truth is plain. As for enlightening the brainwashed masses, why waste your life's energy trying to make them see. The state's resources of persuasion vastly exceed your own. You can never win.

redmudhooch , says: February 3, 2019 at 2:20 am GMT
Good to see Mr.Barrett on Unz. Like his work. They can do all they want to censor, fact is most Americans know the official conspiracy theory is BS. I like reading the comments on the flat earth videos, always makes me laugh to listen to them going at it. The CIA/Mossad made the whole flat earth thing to discredit 9/11 truth, its pretty obvious.

Below is one of the videos I like to show people who don't believe, the 9/11 A&E videos are good too, showing the WTC7 building falling and explaining how its impossible without explosives for it to fall that way. Most people agree after they look into it, some just don't want to believe it, they never thought Americans/Israelis could do that to fellow Americans.

Go to 1m :50s in this video and watch the right side of the building, you can see the building exploding outwards, probably at least 20 stories below the collapsing debris. A building collapsing on itself would not explode out like that, even if it was possible for a steel structure to collapse that way (it isn't) it would not explode out 20+ stories below the collapse. Those are demolition charges going off, lots of them! How'd those sneaky muslims get all those well placed explosives inside?
No one I've shown this video has been able to argue against it.

Its pretty f'd up the media and loser politicians are still going along with this BS, how many more people have to die? These losers should have hung long ago, now they're threatening all of our lives, poking Russia and China the way they are. Ahmajinedad knew the truth, China and Russia probably do too, guess they just aren't willing to cross that line yet.

niteranger , says: February 3, 2019 at 7:09 am GMT
The majority of Conspiracy Theories, Disinformation and Fake News comes from the World's Intelligence Agencies, World Governments and the {{{Media}}} they control. People like Alex Jones is nothing more than a Mossad asset and his operation including the building is paid for by Israel. If you carefully research everyone from Jared Taylor (Yale) (and his wife) you will find connections to the Peace Corp which is a CIA asset used as a patsy, for gathering data and info, and as a cover. Gloria Steinem was CIA asset and spy. David Duke's dad was supposedly a Colonel in Army as well as a big wig in the oil industry ( David Duke says that he spent nine months in Laos, calling it a "normal tour of duty." He actually went to Laos in order to join his father, who was working there and had asked him to visit during the summer of 1971. His father helped him gain a job teaching English to Laotian military officers..Wikipedia).

It's a pretty simple plan they flood all media sources with disinfo and noise and we take the bait and fight about it. Meanwhile, we have no time to investigate what they are doing to us. CNN had more segments on Trump's penis and Stormy Daniels than they did on any true investigations into what Muller was doing.

Sean , says: February 3, 2019 at 7:29 am GMT
The purport of Sunstein and others publishing a paper on disrupting the consensus among 9'/11 Truthers is not obvious to me for the 9/11 conspirators.

Whoever did 9/11 could quite easily stop any Truth consensus forming but just going after the authors of the major theories like Griffin and a few others. They could be put out of action by sending them into divorce courts, bankruptcy, prison or mental homes. Or just given a heart attack on their next visit to a doctor. Or framed for internet child porn ect . Griffin has not even had an IRS audit.

Ahmajinedad knew the truth, China and Russia probably do too,.

That is a huge anomaly. If Russia knew 9/11 was just an excuse used by a cabal running the USA to invade 2 countries on Russia's border (were it so Russia would certainly know) then Russia would become extremely alarmed. They would anticipate the US attacking Russia next, and would not just be sitting on their hands mute. At the very least Russia would be on red alert and screaming to the whole world that America was being led by madmen who were intent on starting WW3. And a putative US deep state conspiracy would have to be literally insane to give Russia the impression that America leadership had gone insane and would attack Russia without cause or warning. Look at the way Putin reacted in Ukraine. No matter how evil and stupid the people in charge of the US were, they simply would not dare provoke Russia like that.

Anon [211] Disclaimer , says: February 3, 2019 at 11:12 am GMT
A war on conspiracy theories is really just a war on your ability to criticize your government because not all conspiracy theories are wrong.

"It is my opinion that social media was launched as a way for our rulers to monitor our opionions and reactions to their propaganda."

Not originally. Drunk on their own propaganda, they were convinced that social media would be beneficial to their interests; I remember the days when these people really thought that Twitter would bring democracy to China and the Middle East – hilariously wrong. However, like an invasive organism introduced to a previously untouched ecosystem, it is having devastating and unforeseen consequences that can only be ameliorated by extreme measures. Thus, they wish now to either ban or heavily regulate its content.

Fred on Nothing , says: February 3, 2019 at 3:51 pm GMT
Notice how (((they))) rattle off a litany of facially delusional narratives about Elvis, Bigfoot and UFO's and once they have us smirking and shaking our heads they tack on 9/11 at the close.

This all about 9/11, friends.

A high school debater and a grand jury of five year olds could indict the Jews for 9/11.

Connect all the dots of indisputable evidence about 9/11 and the Jews are finished -- globally.

Digital Samizdat , says: February 3, 2019 at 5:58 pm GMT

"Conspiracy beliefs can conversely encourage abstention. Those who believe the system is rigged will be less willing to take part in it."

This argument, on its face, doesn't even make sense. If your system is so fair and efficient, then you would want to encourage those who are crazy enough to believe it to be rigged to abstain, lest they make a bad decision on account of their weak powers of reasoning. In that case, the abstention of conspiracy theorists would a problem that solved itself!

Mulegino1 , says: February 3, 2019 at 8:37 pm GMT
A "conspiracy theory" in the weaponized Mockingbird Media use of the term is merely a narrative of events which, even if it enjoys the heavy preponderance of physical, documentary and eyewitness evidence, contradicts the official narrative, which also most likely implies a conspiracy, albeit the latter enjoys the imprimatur of officialdom and the establishment press.

Manifestly false official narratives are in most cases not subject to the rules of ordinary jurisprudence or rules of evidence. Instead of a trial or an exhaustive forensic investigation which follows the evidence, the aforesaid narrative is constructed from the top down- headlines and official pronouncements take the place of an objective gathering of evidence, and all evidence gathered must fit the narrative in Procrustean fashion. Instead of a series of criminal trials, a "commission" is established whose only real purpose is to validate the contrived narrative.

Named for the fat Mama , says: February 3, 2019 at 10:42 pm GMT
The book is Sunstein's 2nd-try application essay for a government censor's job. Government censorship is Harvard's only reason for existing, of course. Sunstein's bucking for his next big promotion.

Cognitive infiltration is not something Sunstein invented. He's not what you call an original thinker. He's another Ivy League apple-polisher, one of Deresiewicz's excellent sheep. Cass just coined himself a little phrase for CIA's invariant procedure for dealing with public discourse about CIA crime.

Infiltration is of course the sleazy government repression technique dating back to the Okhrana at least. Sunstein puts the zoomy word cognitive! in there for extra pizazz.

In the link below, for example, when the definitive documentary The Men Who Killed Kennedy came out, CIA was unable to suppress it without drawing more attention to it. So they encouraged the film JFK, called by its director 'a myth,' and used it to divert attention from facts to innocuous what-ifs. The premise of the what-ifs was distorted by human infiltrators in US government employ like Newman.

https://www.veteranstoday.com/2019/01/27/vietnam-how-they-played-us/

Telling you what to think about the CIA criminal enterprise that runs your country. Cognitive infiltration? Why not? It sounds nicer than what it is, sucking Big Brother's dick.

Sowhat , says: February 4, 2019 at 3:47 am GMT
Orwell, in his book, 1984 wrote that the government had two terms: Oldspeak and Newspeak. One was not permitted to use old speak.
" This was done partly by the invention of new words, but chiefly by eliminating undesirable words and by stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meanings, and so far as possible of all secondary meanings whatever. To give a single example. The word free still existed in Newspeak, but it could only be used in such statements as "This dog is free from lice" or "This field is free from weeds." It could not be used in its old sense of "politically free" or "intellectually free," since political and intellectual freedom no longer existed even as concepts, and were therefore of necessity nameless."
Were sliding down a slippery, ever-darkening slope.
When I step back and try to examine the whole picture, it's very concerning. Take, for instance,
[MORE]
I just read an article elsewhere discussing Roger Stone's arrest at his Florida home, before dawn
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/51017-c.htm . The article had a link to a WordPress article, penned by John Whitehead, The Rutherford Institute about what has crept into America, via the Militarization of the Police Force. I subscribed to his newsletter, years ago when Bush and, then, Obama gave Military Armament to Civilian Police forces. When the "FBI raids Stone's Home" story hit, complete with CNN presence, I realized that we do, in fact have policing by fear in the U.S., advertised by Cable News. I'm not an alarmist but, I am taking this all in and it doesn't look good for us. I've also read that millions of Americans are leaving this country, yes, in droves. I've thought about it, before but, don't know if I can convince Wifey this is what we need to do since were in our 70s. Whiteheads sight has an ongoing ledger of Police incompetence, armed to the teeth just to deliver a warrant, often going to the wrong house, creating chaos, shooting people and their animals and then finding out that they raided the wrong house and killed the wrong person. A flash-band grenade was launched into the wrong residence, landed on a toddler in a crib and burned a hole in its stomach. The scales are tipped in the favor of cops and, if a homeowner attempts to defend himself, he's prosecuted to the full extent of the "law." Our 4th amendment is gone. Our First and Second Amendment Rights are under heavy attack. There's a call for a Constitutional Convention with almost all of the States sign on for an Article Five Convention.

Were all in deep shit. It doesn't matter if you are guilty of a crime or not. If they'll go after an unarmed Roger Stone, guns pointed, in front of his family, terrorizing them for National TV, what do YOU think is their intent? With 10 Zillion Super-Cop shows on TV for the last forty years, where they always get their man, never make errors and show how violent they are, legally, what do you think is the intent?
Nothing happens on the government level by accident NOTHING

First, Myspace sucked in all of the youngsters and they learned how easy it was to communicate, online. Then, Twitter and Facebook arrived as beacons of free speech. Then, other commentary friendly web site pop up everywhere, allowing you to spew your agitated heart out and argue with each other and call each other names and then opposite ideologies manifested in separate sites on the net with "moderators" that throw registrants off (banning/banishing) them for defending their positions echo chambers for the "alt" Right or the politically correct Left Trump bashers. Sometime, I suggest you go to these and read the commenters' remarks. They're literally insane. I was even banned from a DISCUSS site for suggesting some civil discourse, identifying myself as a Trump Voter.

Do you really believe that all of these issues simply morphed to lock out Conservatives? No way. This was all planned, possibly to I.D. individuals who are "potential" adversaries of a different ideology or possible "problem people" that get put on a watch list. If the DNA Ancestry sights are GIVING your DNA results to the Government, what good can come of it?

Colin Wright , says: Website February 4, 2019 at 6:57 am GMT
Cass Sunstein is Jewish.
Cloak And Dagger , says: February 4, 2019 at 7:16 am GMT
Great article, Dr. Barrett, but you left out one possibility in your following statement:

The too-obvious answer, of course, is that they must realize that 9/11 was in fact a US-Israeli false flag operation. The 9/11 truth movement, in that case, would be a threat not because it is wrong, but because it is right. To the extent that Americans know or suspect the truth, the US government will undoubtedly find it harder to pursue various "national security" objectives. Ergo, 9/11 "conspiracy theories" are a threat to national security, and extreme measures are required to combat them.

The obvious and more likely possibility is that they KNOW that the 9/11 official story is false and they KNOW what the real story is, and are, therefore, complicit in that criminal false-flag. So, the truth is not a threat to national security, but is a threat to their person and a hazard to their continued health and prosperity.

If the truth were to come out, I fully expect these scoundrels to be shepherded to the gallows, sporting manacles and steel neck bracelets. Now, that would be a day to celebrate!

Full News , says: February 4, 2019 at 10:42 am GMT
@Fred on Nothing Will 911 denial become a crime in the way "holocaust denial" has. My intuition is that the methods used to ensure a public consensus are very similar.
HiHo , says: February 4, 2019 at 10:54 am GMT
Power is violence or the threat of violence. Truth is what you believe it to be to maintain that power base. Throughout history suppression of truth replaced with propaganda is the way of the powerful. These intellectual cretins are only replicating an old age tradition practiced by the powerful.

In 1946 the Jewish Chronical published an assessment of the effects of WWII on the Jewish community world wide that stated in 1939 Jewry consisted of 15,500,000 people and in 1946 stood at 15,600,000!

In 1943 British intelligence cracked the SS cypher and was able to read all the daily reports from the SS run work camps. British Intelligence headed by a Rothschild concluded the daily reports stating numbers of deaths per camp were what one would expect from work camps.

In 1944 1,350,000 Jews were machine gunned to death in Ukraine by the SS. These Jews came from Eastern Europe and parts of Russia. This extermination is well documented in German military records available to this day to read, just as British intelligence reports are in the War Office.

None of this is ever mentioned by those in power who promote the Holocaust! I wonder why?

The truth is what you say it is and if you don't believe my truth you get sent to prison, lose your source of income and get persecuted by our parasitic termite rulers!

Just saying Can't understand the point of this article since it is stating the eternally obvious!!!

aspnaz , says: February 4, 2019 at 12:08 pm GMT
Someone should sue You Tube for not providing normal content that would enable a young person to develop the ability to distinguish truth and fiction – people cannot develop properly in a sanitised environment.

Similar to protecting babies from germs – dirt is good for babies, especially when they put it in their mouths – resulting in them growing up with allergies and other immune deficiency issues.

ariadna , says: February 4, 2019 at 12:13 pm GMT
I disagree with Mr. Barrett on one point: I do not believe that Sunstein's (and his disinformation accomplices') is an "irrational panic" at all.

I think it is well founded and perfectly justified.

Americans may not care about lies related to many things, pedestrian crimes like corruption, for example, but 9/11 is different in significance and impact by many degrees of magnitude.

The Sunsteins know that if a critical mass of Americans realized the enormity of murderous treason perpetrated on 9/11 by their "elite" in cahoots with a foreign power there may well arise tsunami that would sweep them out of power, and worse.

Stephen Paul Foster , says: Website February 4, 2019 at 12:23 pm GMT
Great article. Appropriating and controlling the language used by the hopelessly corrupted opinion-shaping, event-interpreting industries -- mass media, schools, universities, entertainment syndicates -- are the keys to "selling" whatever distortions or fictions work for solidifying the grip of the elites on their power. The cost of managing what collective Joe Public thinks is much cheaper and more effective than threatening, policing and punishing him.

"Conspiracy theory," like "denialism" (climate change, Holocaust, etc.), "hate crimes," "diversity," are a few of the terms that the left has appropriated and twisted far beyond their standard meaning that are used to completely distort reality. Once they fall into standard use, they are so insidiously pervasive, and so perverse, that it is very difficult even for thoughtful critics and skeptics of the scripted, official narratives to counter them.

"Racism" is a good example of how this works. It is an extortionist word, used for moral leverage (you are from a group that did bad things to people from my group -- you owe me -- a job, an apology, a lower level of accountability, etc.). No white person has ever convinced his accuser that he is not a "racist" . so, by apologizing (Please, I am not a racist) or indignatly denying simply ups the extortionist leverage of the term. It's Catch 22. Once entrenched, the game is over. Does any sane person out there believe that "racism'" is ever going to lessen anywhere in the western world? "Islamophobia" (another moral-extortion instrument) is one of the more obvious and outrageous inventions. It is now in common use and, of course, makes it much more difficult to have a rational conversation about contemporary Islam.

"Democracy" is one of the most corrupted words now in play.
See: http://fosterspeak.blogspot.com/2017/12/our-democracy-what-is-it-really.html

Anon71 , says: February 4, 2019 at 12:28 pm GMT
@Sowhat

"I've also read that millions of Americans are leaving this country, yes, in drove s."

Everybody I know with a dime and a passport has gotten the hell out.

DESERT FOX , says: February 4, 2019 at 1:32 pm GMT
Real events and real causes are called conspiracy theories by our Zionist controllers in the fear of waking up the American people to the true terrorists who are in control of our government!
Carroll Price , says: February 4, 2019 at 1:43 pm GMT
Taking into account the intellectual level on which the vast majority of the American public dwell, the Establishment has nothing to worry about.
Justsaying , says: February 4, 2019 at 1:45 pm GMT

Sunstein argues that conspiracy theories (i.e. the 9/11 truth movement) are so dangerous that some day they may have to be banned by law.

Would the ban extend to the biggest source of conspiracy theories such as the MSM and successive US Administrations led by unprecedented numbers of war criminals? Prominent among such conspiracy theories is the notorious WMD lie and linking Iraq to 9/11 peddled by all and sundry leading to catastrophic results for a country that neither had WMDs nor had anything to do with 9/11. In contrast, our esteemed nomadic allies, the KSA government have been given a free pass despite 17 of the 19 hijackers being Saudis.

Earlier there was the Gulf of Tonkin lie and later Assad's chemical weapons against his own citizens at a time he was winning the war against ISIS.

Not to mention the brutal whacking of Qaddafi based on the lie that he constituted a genocidal threat to his own countrymen.

Now the seed of the Venezuela lie is well on its way to full germination and realization in targeting another oil rich country for destruction and theft of its resources. The YouTube story is a familiar one of monopoly and lack of alternative sources of social media. What is needed is the UR equivalent of social media and YouTube.

anarchyst , says: February 4, 2019 at 1:57 pm GMT
The "mainstream media" was never honest. There has always been an "agenda", whether promoted by governments, or those above the government power structure who really "call the shots".

The "snag" in their plans is the internet, which makes it possible for anyone to put out their point-of-view, concerns, or theories, without having to negotiate the (former) "gatekeepers".

The powers-that-be and their media types are running scared and attempting to "put the genie back into the bottle" by forming "truth commissions", enlisting the major social media outlets to combat and marginalize "ideas" that do not conform to the "commonly accepted narrative" (what the media outlets and the powers-that-be WANT us to believe).

It is only a matter of time before media outlets use the flawed legal concept of "judicial notice" to disarm those who run counter to "commonly accepted beliefs", not unlike what is used to silence and convict those who (attempt to) state the real truth of the so-called jewish "holocaust". In holocaust case prosecutions, "judicial notice" is used to silence the truth, as real truth runs counter to "commonly accepted beliefs", even if those "beliefs" can easily be disproven.

Attempts to silence those who will not "toe the party line" WILL fail, as most people are smart enough to know that the "narrative" has always been rigged to favor the "powers-that-be"

Heros , says: February 4, 2019 at 1:58 pm GMT
@j2 Great to see you here J2, what timing.

To me, John Robinson lays it all out. The Ur-verschwörung. The mother of all conspiracies and the proof of it. I know that you are very knowledgeable in these matters, J2. What to you think of Jon Robinsons book?

https://www.conspiracyarchive.com/PROOFS_OF_A_CONSPIRACY_John_Robison.pdf

[Jan 07, 2019] Our Man in Riyadh by Andrew J. Bacevich

Jan 07, 2019 | www.unz.com

Monkhouse , says: November 27, 2018 at 9:55 pm GMT

Agreed that the House of Saud and the salafist jihadis are to blame for so much that has happened in the ME since long before 9/11. And that the Long War is always projected as "defense" against the nefarious "terrorists" who are objects of the GWOT. But, dude, all the terrorists in the world still don't have anything that amounts to a real army, navy, and – how ridiculous can it be? – an air force. The Long War has never really amounted to anything more than a cover story and a smoke screen.

That's because, as we have been informed of late, the real enemy is Russia. And China. And everything else that counts in the Long Great Game of four-dimensional chess must necessarily conform to the strategy that ultimately is about "containment" of those two competitors for global power. This is not just my own opinion. It has come down from on-high, in statements conveyed by the highest ranks of military authority. News flash: The "enemy" is no longer the "terrorists" – if it ever was. The plan's best advocate may have been Paul Wolfowitz, whose "doctrine" was "no peer competitors" – forever. That's the Long War for ya.

Carlton Meyer , says: Website January 7, 2019 at 5:40 am GMT

To retain a respectable status, Mr. Bacevich skipped over the hard evidence that Prince Bandar directly funded the 9-11 terrorists (aka patsies) while all were in the USA, per the FBI:

From my blog:

Jul 17, 2016 – The 28 Pages

After years of controversy, the House Intelligence Committee declassified part of their December 2002 report on the 9-11 attacks, which shows direct Saudi involvement in supporting the 9-11 attackers. This major story has been ignored by most of our corporate media. White House press secretary Josh Earnest said: "This information does not change the assessment of the US government that there's no evidence that the Saudi government or senior Saudi individuals funded al-Qaida." The BBC reported the story, but assures us it proves no high level links to the Saudi government.

The House Committee report states that Saudi Ambassador to the USA and a close friend of the Bush family, Prince Bandar, and his wife sent the 9-11 attackers thousands of dollars on several occasions; but I guess the BBC does not consider him high-level, or their reporters didn't bother to read the 28 pages. BBC readers will not know these facts because the BBC report failed to provide a link to the 28 pages.

____________________

My blog has a link to the us.gov hard evidence:

https://intelligence.house.gov/committee-report/intel-committee-publishes-declassified-%C3%A2%E2%82%AC%C5%9328-pages%C3%A2%E2%82%AC%C2%9D

But I now see it has been scrubbed:

Bad Request – Invalid URL

HTTP Error 400. The request URL is invalid.

This can be found elsewhere on the internet. His wife wired them money directly, but not news in the USA.

Gene , says: January 7, 2019 at 8:18 am GMT

Bacevich should rewrite: After 9/11, the Israeli envoy made the most of those connections, deflecting attention away from the role The Israelis had played in the events of that day while fingering Saddam Hussein's Iraq as the true font of Islamist terrorism.

The hard evidence to substantiate the role played by Israel is overwhelming.

Wizard of Oz , says: January 7, 2019 at 8:22 am GMT
@Carlton Meyer

Unless you are saying that Prince Bandar may have been deliberatey involved in setting up the events of 9/11 you are just waffling to get attention. And if you are saying that you are spouting obvious BS.

onebornfree , says: Website January 7, 2019 at 10:33 am GMT

Andrew J. Bacevich says:

" .General, can you describe this Long War of ours? What is its nature? What is it all about?

Are we winning? How can we tell?

How much longer should Americans expect it to last?

What are we up against? ."

" ..What would be the criteria for removing our remaining troops from the Iraqi, Syrian, and more general Middle Eastern conflicts? Or, for that matter, from Afghanistan, where we have been trapped for more than 17 long years of still open-ended occupation?

If the answer to that question is that only when each of these countries is a healthy pro-American democracy, and Islamist terrorism has ceased to be an "enduring" threat to the West, then the answer, as the old Bob Mankoff joke has it, is "How about never -- is never good for you?" ":

See: " The Pentagon's "Never Ending War" Scam ":
http://onebornfree-mythbusters.blogspot.com/2019/01/onebornfrees-special-scam-alerts-no-82.html

Regards, onebornfree

jacques sheete , says: January 7, 2019 at 11:29 am GMT

Recall that was a Saudi. So, too, were 15 of the 19 hijackers on September 11, 2001.

Gimme a break.

When I saw Bacevich's name, I wasted no time reading. However, with that one statement, his credibility just dropped to zero. Just another unthinking garbage peddler, (I'm in a gnerous mood this AM), it seems.

jacques sheete , says: January 7, 2019 at 11:36 am GMT

To retain a respectable status, Mr. Bacevich skipped over the hard evidence that Prince Bandar directly funded the 9-11 terrorists (aka patsies) while all were in the US.

While I have no hard evidence to either confirm or deny any of that, I commend you for the likely accurate use of the term,"patsies." I highly suspect that they were little more than actors in a false flag drama and think it would be more accurate to label them "alleged terrorists." No?

dimples , says: January 7, 2019 at 1:54 pm GMT
@Wizard of Oz

That is what Mr Meyer is saying. Bandar was deliberately involved in setting up the events of 911. Unless you are a follower of the absurd belief that 'Saudi Arabia did 911', then the most rational explanation is that he was doing it on behalf of the deep state US/Israeli plotters. The Saudis were effectively the handlers for the fake hijackers. Bandar blundered somewhat by not having enough cutouts to make US govt claims that he was innocent totally believable.

MLK , says: January 7, 2019 at 2:19 pm GMT

With MBS in charge, is Saudi Arabia part of the solution or part of the problem?

This is exactly the wrong question to ask. It's a testament to how thoroughly a Regime Change mindset has disastrously taken hold that even seeming critics like you are captured by it.

The Real Enemy . . . militant Salafism

Your use "enemy," let alone "The Real Enemy" is depressingly telling. Particularly for pissant jihadis who we've variously funded and armed over the years.

Saudi Arabia is in the midst of a generational shift in its ruling factions.

How did our Regime Change Libya work out? Or Obama/Hillary's Morsi/MB gambit in Egypt?

The American foreign policy establishment is highly selective in who it deems beyond the pale (e.g. assassin in chief; perpetrator of atrocities).

What does President Trump's recent nomination of retired Army General John Abizaid to become the next U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia signify? That the President is focused on stabilizing the Middle East and our position in it. It means that the Saudis must reverse their military and strategic openings to Russia/China.

Anon [257] Disclaimer , says: January 7, 2019 at 4:58 pm GMT
@Wizard of Oz

Prince Bandar's wife did send several thousand dollars to the terrorists who arrived in Los Angeles airport, went directly to nearby Culver City and met s contact st the big Culver City mosque and then to San Diego where they stayed a while.

The Saudi's claimed that the money sent to the terrorists was just the standard diplomat's duty to help their nationals in foreign countries Most countries aren't that generous to their traveling nationals. But most countries don't have the money that Saudi does.

Her sending the money was widely reported at the time.

jilles dykstra , says: January 7, 2019 at 5:03 pm GMT
@wagelaborer

Harold L Ickes at the end of 1944 made Saudi Arabia a USA colony.
Saudi Arabia somehow resembles Israel, without USA support it cannot exist.
But there is, still is, a big difference, the Saudi kings are just USA puppets, jews still have enormous influence in the USA.
The other difference, Saudi Arabia has oil, Israel is just a nuisance.

[Jan 04, 2019] Was 911 Isreali job ?

Jan 04, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com

Dr. Acula , 31 minutes ago link

Israel did 9/11

[Jan 04, 2019] NORAD exercise called Vigilant Guardian was simulating terrorist attacks by hijackers which, curiously enough, happened to be in operation on the very day the Saudi hijackers were actually conducting such attacks

Jan 04, 2019 | theintercept.com

photosymbiosis, 1 hour ago

Just remembered something about Arkin. This book: Code Names: Deciphering U.S. Military Plans, Programs and Operations in the 9/11 World January 25, 2005 by William M. Arkin https://books.google.com/books/about/Code_Names.html?id=KXLfAAAAMAAJ In particular there was this one exercise called Vigilant Guardian, run by NORAD, simulating terrorist attacks by hijackers which, curiously enough, happened to be in operation on the very day the Saudi hijackers were actually conducting such attacks:

NORAD's next Vigilant Guardian exercise, in 2001, will actually be several days underway on 9/11 (see (6:30 a.m.) September 11, 2001). It will include a number of scenarios based around plane hijackings, with the fictitious hijackers targeting New York in at least one of those scenarios (see September 6, 2001, September 9, 2001, September 10, 2001, and (9:40 a.m.) September 11, 2001). [9/11 COMMISSION, 2004; VANITY FAIR, 8/1/2006]
http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=vigilant_guardian However, what's interesting from Arkin's book, as I recall, is that this operation name was then reused in Afghanistan (a very rare practice, apparently, to reuse an operation name, but perhaps if you wanted to hide the original program, etc...), in 2003 or so - here's a NYT article about Vigilant Guardian in Afghanistan: https://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/20/magazine/where-the-enemy-is-everywhere-and-nowhere.html

It's just one of many stories that makes one wonder exactly how much pre-warning the Bush Administration had about the 9/11 attacks, and whether there was a deliberate decision to allow the hijackers to seize control of the planes without any interference. It did save the Bush presidency, it did open the door to the Iraq invasion, and the Saudi intelligence services were involved with helping the hijackers. All very suspicious, really. Point being, Arkin's book is one of the few sources that lay out all those covert/overt program names, and is a real treasure for anyone interested in the history of that era.

[Jan 02, 2019] Pay The Fck Up Hackers Threaten To Dump Secret 9-11 Attack Files If Bitcoin Ransom Not Met

Jan 02, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com

inosent , 4 minutes ago link

Disinfo. Interesting how 911 is getting a lot of attention lately. Uniformly we see stories that 'expose' the people ... not actually behind it :)

Looks like the high profile (((scum))) are getting nervous. As well they should. Everybody smells a rat, they doubt the official story, but they can't figure out where the (((stink))) is coming from - yet.

847328_3527 , 5 minutes ago link

This is really the ONLY way to get the truth these days; it's from hackers who appropriate "secret" files that either the corrupt gubmint or private companies will not release.

i wonder if they also have files that show what happened to Malaysia Airlines 370?

........................................................................................to Seth Rich?

.........................................................................................to Vincent Foster?

.........................................................................................to Kennedy's killers?

Hackers may turn out to be the "Heroes" of 2019!

-- ALIEN -- , 10 minutes ago link

The TeeVee would say it was a Russian Plot to destroy America and the audience would yawn...

bizarroworld , 16 minutes ago link

Enough with the 9/11 ****. I am so sick and tired of still hearing about this 17.5 years later as with the way people go on about it, you'd think millions of people died. Even if evidence ever came out that proved it was an inside job (which I believe it was...sorry, don't buy that a few groups of 3 or 4 guys with utility knives could successfully hijack 3 or 4 planes at the same time and then have 2 steel towers collapse in their own footprint because of 2 holes and some fire burning for 30-50 minutes), it isn't going to matter to the people who don't already believe it was an inside job. They won't care.

... ... ...

Debt Slave , 17 minutes ago link

What could be more damning than videos of WTC 7?

Pair Of Dimes Shift , 40 minutes ago link

"Pull it!" - Larry Silverstein

Maximeme Q , 36 minutes ago link

First thing I thought of when I saw Larry's name.

Pair Of Dimes Shift , 29 minutes ago link

The insurance policy he upped a few months prior to 9/11 was contingent on the WHOLE WTC complex going down.

Then the bastard later went after the airlines involved and WON.

Urban Roman , 30 minutes ago link

Much more damning than whatever these "anonymous hackers" probably have, And ... nothing.

This "hack" is probably just another disinformation campaign.

MoralsAreEssential , 51 minutes ago link

Well, along with the obvious reason for 911 to get us into continuous war in the ME for Israhell, I have read Twin Towers were loaded with asbestos and litigation was about to go forward on that; Bush Crime Family had long term securities maturing the origin of which would reveal their Nazi roots; Gold in the vaults beneath TT; Building 7 was old CIA storage loaded with historical documents of many crimes. Too bad these hackers just want to blackmail OR that could be a ruse to release information.

MoralsAreEssential , 48 minutes ago link

The airplanes were neutralized because there was a Training Exercise scheduled, I believe on the Left Coast. Just like the Kennedy assassination, Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld had all the bases covered due to their positions of power.

Clock Crasher , 1 hour ago link

There is an open law suit between 9/11 responders (through law firms) and Saudi Arabia.

Come to papa! C_C needs a new pair of mail order brides.

MoralsAreEssential , 45 minutes ago link

Architects and Engineers just announced a Grand Jury hearing in Manhattan is upcoming on 911. How do they expect to get a fair hearing in NYC which is more corrupt and complicit in 911 than the criminals running Commiefornika?

I Am Jack's Macroaggression , 1 hour ago link

Families of the 9/11 victims sought redress immediately after the attacks.

Enter Kenneth Feinberg, highly celebrated and dedicated Zionist extremist, devoted to Israel. Feinberg was appointed master of a huge $7 billion taxpayer funded Victims Compensation Fund. Estimates put the total settlement amount at less than $3.5 billion total for all the victims. Due to the lack of oversight, it's anyone's guess where the rest of the tax dollars have gone. Ellen Mariani, a brave and fiery widow and 9/11 plaintiff, included Feinberg in her lawsuit which was eventually forcibly settled.

Feinberg's inclusion in the suit was partially related to his success in bribing Mariani's attorney to try to coerce his client to accept the fund's payout and attempt to convince her that she was clinically insane. Feinberg was also appointed as the key clean up man for the BP oil spill and he aggressively tried to strip plaintiffs of legal representation by shrewdly leveraging the power of his dollar coffers. In fact, Kenneth Feinberg has been the money-waving head cover-up artist of many government and corporate crimes like Agent Orange, the 9/11 Attacks, the Virginia Tech Shooter scandal, the TARP bailout, and the BP Oil spill.

For the 96 families who initially chose to forgo the fund in favor of a transparent trial, Sheila Birnbaum was appointed special mediator between Hellerstein and the victims' families. Birnbaum, another dedicated Zionist lawyer at the Israeli Skadden Arps, effectively railroaded these brave families and forced them all to settle. Skadden Arps introduces itself with the following on its website:

Many of our attorneys are thoroughly familiar with the legal structure, business environment and political system of Israel, and several (including at the partner level) are Israeli-born, native Hebrew speakers who have been admitted to the bars of both Israel and New York. A number of our lawyers volunteer a significant amount of their time to Jewish and Israeli causes, including the America-Israel Friendship League, the Anti-Defamation League, the College of Management, the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, Elem, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, The Jerusalem Foundation and Miklat.

Alvin K Hellerstein and Michael Mukasey have been the Israeli connected, Talmudic tag-team of NY federal judges that have dominated 9/11 related litigation. They've effectively prevented all cases from the victims' families from being heard in court and ensuring the maximum payout for the Zionist duo of Silverstein and Lowy from the insurance companies.

Alvin Hellerstein is tied to 9/11 directly in his role as head gatekeeper on all 9/11 claims, preventing legal discovery, wrongful death and personal injury lawsuits from trial. Judge Hellerstein is also intimately connected to other key Israeli players of the 9/11 massacre on multiple layers through his son, Joseph. Joseph Hellerstein worked for an Israeli law firm, Amit, Pollack and Matalon, which represented ICTS, the Israeli firm implicated in the attacks via passenger screening and airline security at Newark, Boston Logan, and Dulles, the departure sites of the hijacked aircraft.

ICTS is owned by two Israelis, Ezra Harel and Menachem Atzmon, who was convicted in Israel of fraud with partner and mayor of Jerusalem, Ehud Olmert. Olmert later became prime minister of Israel. Olmert incidentally also made a secret trip to meet with then mayor of NYC, Rudy Guiliani on the eve of 9/11, ostensibly to oversee their plot. He and other Israeli officials were allowed to leave the US aboard an El Al plane when all other planes were grounded on 9/11. ICTS was implicated in the 7/7 bombings in London as well.

Hellerstein and Mukasey just so happen to attend the exact same Orthodox, Zionist, Kehilath Jeshrun synagogue in Manhattan. The synagogue openly states that it is "deeply committed to the State of Israel and its citizens." How would Americans feel if Pakistani Jihadists at the behest of Pakistan were implicated in 9/11 and two Pakistani Jihadist Judges, who attended the same "radical" mosque, were blocking trials for the victims' families to pursue legal discovery and preventing any presentation of evidence in a wrongful death suit against an airline security intimately connected to one of the aforementioned judges?

Hellerstein recently effectively blocked the last victim's family, the Bavises, from ever having a day of trial against the government and airport security, forcing them to settle out of court after a decade of his dedicated gatekeeping. His callous quote to the 96 families of victims of 9/11 will live in infamy: "We have to get past 9/11. Let it go. Life is beautiful. Life is short. Live out your years. Take the award." Both father and son Hellerstein also worked for Stroock, Stroock, and Lavan, a Rothschild funded law firm which, incidentally, represented Larry Silverstein in his bid to lease the towers. How many conflicts of interests can you count?

http://www.wicipolskie.org/?p=26383

I Am Jack's Macroaggression , 1 hour ago link

Families of the 9/11 victims sought redress immediately after the attacks.

Enter Kenneth Feinberg, highly celebrated and dedicated Zionist extremist, devoted to Israel. Feinberg was appointed master of a huge $7 billion taxpayer funded Victims Compensation Fund. Estimates put the total settlement amount at less than $3.5 billion total for all the victims. Due to the lack of oversight, it's anyone's guess where the rest of the tax dollars have gone. Ellen Mariani, a brave and fiery widow and 9/11 plaintiff, included Feinberg in her lawsuit which was eventually forcibly settled.

Feinberg's inclusion in the suit was partially related to his success in bribing Mariani's attorney to try to coerce his client to accept the fund's payout and attempt to convince her that she was clinically insane. Feinberg was also appointed as the key clean up man for the BP oil spill and he aggressively tried to strip plaintiffs of legal representation by shrewdly leveraging the power of his dollar coffers. In fact, Kenneth Feinberg has been the money-waving head cover-up artist of many government and corporate crimes like Agent Orange, the 9/11 Attacks, the Virginia Tech Shooter scandal, the TARP bailout, and the BP Oil spill.

For the 96 families who initially chose to forgo the fund in favor of a transparent trial, Sheila Birnbaum was appointed special mediator between Hellerstein and the victims' families. Birnbaum, another dedicated Zionist lawyer at the Israeli Skadden Arps, effectively railroaded these brave families and forced them all to settle. Skadden Arps introduces itself with the following on its website:

Many of our attorneys are thoroughly familiar with the legal structure, business environment and political system of Israel, and several (including at the partner level) are Israeli-born, native Hebrew speakers who have been admitted to the bars of both Israel and New York. A number of our lawyers volunteer a significant amount of their time to Jewish and Israeli causes, including the America-Israel Friendship League, the Anti-Defamation League, the College of Management, the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, Elem, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, The Jerusalem Foundation and Miklat.

Alvin K Hellerstein and Michael Mukasey have been the Israeli connected, Talmudic tag-team of NY federal judges that have dominated 9/11 related litigation. They've effectively prevented all cases from the victims' families from being heard in court and ensuring the maximum payout for the Zionist duo of Silverstein and Lowy from the insurance companies.

Alvin Hellerstein is tied to 9/11 directly in his role as head gatekeeper on all 9/11 claims, preventing legal discovery, wrongful death and personal injury lawsuits from trial. Judge Hellerstein is also intimately connected to other key Israeli players of the 9/11 massacre on multiple layers through his son, Joseph. Joseph Hellerstein worked for an Israeli law firm, Amit, Pollack and Matalon, which represented ICTS, the Israeli firm implicated in the attacks via passenger screening and airline security at Newark, Boston Logan, and Dulles, the departure sites of the hijacked aircraft.

ICTS is owned by two Israelis, Ezra Harel and Menachem Atzmon, who was convicted in Israel of fraud with partner and mayor of Jerusalem, Ehud Olmert. Olmert later became prime minister of Israel. Olmert incidentally also made a secret trip to meet with then mayor of NYC, Rudy Guiliani on the eve of 9/11, ostensibly to oversee their plot. He and other Israeli officials were allowed to leave the US aboard an El Al plane when all other planes were grounded on 9/11. ICTS was implicated in the 7/7 bombings in London as well.

Hellerstein and Mukasey just so happen to attend the exact same Orthodox, Zionist, Kehilath Jeshrun synagogue in Manhattan. The synagogue openly states that it is "deeply committed to the State of Israel and its citizens." How would Americans feel if Pakistani Jihadists at the behest of Pakistan were implicated in 9/11 and two Pakistani Jihadist Judges, who attended the same "radical" mosque, were blocking trials for the victims' families to pursue legal discovery and preventing any presentation of evidence in a wrongful death suit against an airline security intimately connected to one of the aforementioned judges?

Hellerstein recently effectively blocked the last victim's family, the Bavises, from ever having a day of trial against the government and airport security, forcing them to settle out of court after a decade of his dedicated gatekeeping. His callous quote to the 96 families of victims of 9/11 will live in infamy: "We have to get past 9/11. Let it go. Life is beautiful. Life is short. Live out your years. Take the award." Both father and son Hellerstein also worked for Stroock, Stroock, and Lavan, a Rothschild funded law firm which, incidentally, represented Larry Silverstein in his bid to lease the towers. How many conflicts of interests can you count?

http://www.wicipolskie.org/?p=26383

[Dec 30, 2018] Federal Grand Jury to Hear Evidence of World Trade Center Demolition

Dec 30, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

JethroBodien , 9 minutes ago

Spread the word folks. The most important issue of our generation

Federal Grand Jury to Hear Evidence of World Trade Center Demolition
https://www.ae911truth.org/grandjury/

benb , 4 minutes ago

Exposing 9/11 is the key. This whole stinking National Security Police State is fueled by the 9/11 fraud.

[Dec 24, 2018] People like you must count as a great success for the obedience training that keeps capitalist society running smoothly, with the few dissidents casually dismissed as "a bunch of tin foil hat wearing fruitcakes".

Dec 24, 2018 | off-guardian.org

Peter Bolton says Dec, 6, 2018

You know already what I will respond to this. And I know already what you will say in return. So, instead of getting into a back and forth about it, I will simply leave you with something to consider.

The fact that each successive report that comes out that refutes the claims of the truther movement is automatically dismissed by people like you shows how conspiracy theory thinking works. The final 9/11 report comes out in 2004 and, of course, the truthers dismiss it because it was written by a branch of the federal government who you believe perpetrated 9/11 in the first place. Then Popular Mechanics publishes a 5,500 word report in 2005 extensively answering and debunking the movement claims.

Here, you people can't claim that it was a government cover-up -- at least not directly -- because Popular Mechanics is a privately owned publication. Therefore, new sub-conspiracy theories are invented to "prove" how Popular Mechanics is part of the cover-up. To give just one example Christopher Bollyn "claimed to have discovered why the 100-year-old engineering magazine would take part in a government cover-up of the crime of the century: A young researcher on the magazine's staff named Benjamin Chertoff was a cousin of then-Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, and the magazine was seeking to whitewash the criminal conspiracy with its coverage." (Slate 2011) Here we are seeing the kind of incredible mental contortion that truthers are willing to engage in to continue believing their theories.

Then in 2008 the National Institute of Standards and Technology released the final installment of its study into the causes behind the collapse of the buildings -- $16 million was invested into the investigation. And, as I well know, you and other truthers will have a smart Alec come-back as to why the NIST report is wrong, its authors are part of the vast conspiracy and so on. On and on it goes no matter how many reports are published by however many experts.

Again, I am not interested in getting dragged into a back-and-forth about the merits and demerits of these reports. Rather, I wish to point out the flawed reasoning inherent to 9/11 trutherism: that it has its own internal mechanisms for discounting any evidence that contradicts its central tenets. It therefore constitutes a closed system of thought because there is nothing that would ever count as a refutation. In other words, for all contradictory evidence another explanation is made to retroactively fit the latest gap in the theory that is exposed.

Now, I know full well that this is probably not going to change your mind either. And I'm sure that there will be plenty of responses to this comment and thumbs down from Off-Guardian readers. But I hope that you at least consider whether you are wrong about this subject. For my part, I worry that 9/11 trutherism obscures what are indeed important subjects -- US imperialism, US govt. corruption, the nefarious influence of the CIA, the legitimate grievance that people in the Middle East have against the US, Israel, the Saudi dictatorship and so on. Above all, I worry that 9/11 trutherism makes it open season for the real enemies -- the US foreign policy establishment, et cetera -- to portray the resistance to them and their agenda as a bunch of tin foil hat wearing fruitcakes. I feel strongly that the left needs to jettison this in-group, conspiracy theory-type stuff really become a major force and overturn the status quo.

milosevic says Dec, 9, 2018
People like you must count as a great success for the obedience training that keeps capitalist society running smoothly, with the few dissidents casually dismissed as "a bunch of tin foil hat wearing fruitcakes".

Even NIST eventually admitted that WTC-7 free-fell for 2.5 seconds. That can only happen if all the support columns fail at exactly the same time; otherwise it would topple over sideways. Only controlled explosives can make that happen.

Your touching faith in the word of ruling-class "experts", over the evidence of your own eyes, and basic physics, is a credit to the Middle Ages. It would warm the hearts of the Catholic theologians who refused to look through Galileo's telescope because they knew, as a matter of revealed truth, that what he said couldn't possibly be true.

What do the claims of a bunch of tinfoil-hat-wearing fruitcakes count for, against not just ruling class dogma, but the entire weight of respectable middle-class opinion? The social status and careers of millions of right-thinking professionals, like you, depend on believing, or at least pretending to believe, not just the 9/11 Official Story, but all the other Official Stories as well. How could all those comfy middle-class people, with their comfy middle-class careers and high-status friends, be wrong? That would throw the entire plan for next weekend's dinner party into question.

Do you believe the Offical Skripal Story? The Official ISIS story? The Official Syrian Chemical Weapons Story? The Official JFK Assassination Story? The Official USS Liberty Story? The Official Tonkin Gulf Story? How do you decide which Official Stories to believe, except on the basis of careerism and status-seeking?

https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/free-fall-acceleration

https://www.youtube.com/embed/SBmyPW6gGGI?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&autohide=2&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&wmode=transparent

Peter Bolton says Dec, 16, 2018
Again, I am not interested in getting drawn into a back-and-forth about the various claims of 9/11 truthers like yourself. I would just like to make one comment and then leave two things for yourself and other truthers on here to consider.

First, I would like to comment upon the fact that I have been subjected to some rather nasty personalized abuse on this thread simply for challenging the claims of trutherism. I'm not pointing this out to feel aggrieved or to search for sympathy or to make myself out as some kind of victim. Rather I do so to illustrate how it is indicative of the negative and mind-closing effects of the group-think and the conspiracy theorist mind-set. It goes something like this: "everyone who questions the tenets of the great truther theory is the enemy, not just a skeptic but rather a collaborator in the evil system that suppresses the "truth"."

Second, I want to provide a link to an excellent article that addresses the claims of truthers head-on: https://www.skeptical-science.com/critical-thinking/911-conspiracy-theories-debunked/

The people it discusses were truthers and many of them reexamined their beliefs after being confronted by actual specialists on the subjects basing their truther beliefs on. If you are open-minded as you claim to be, then have the decency to at least read the article and consider its points, rather than just reflexively rejecting the source as part of the great cover-up.

Finally, I would like to leave you with a quote from Noam Chomsky. Now, I am well aware that you think Chomsky is a sell-out for not getting on board with trutherism and that you have all kinds of fancy come-backs as to why he is wrong. But he raises a very important issue of priorities for people on the anti-imperialist left to consider. Is this obsession with this issue really helping us to fight against imperialism and all of the other iniquities of the world? I think not:

"One of the major consequences of the 9/11 movement has been to draw enormous amounts of energy and effort away from activism directed to real and ongoing crimes of state, and their institutional background, crimes that are far more serious than blowing up the WTC would be, if there were any credibility to that thesis. That is, I suspect, why the 9/11 movement is treated far more tolerantly by centers of power than is the norm for serious critical and activist work." Noam Chomsky

Makropulos says Dec, 3, 2018
Ah "truther", that neologism which serves the same purpose as the recasting of the term "conspiracy" to designate foolishness, gullibilty etc.

And as for Chomsky, well here's what he had to say about the 9/11 "inside job" theory:

"And even if it were true, which is extremely unlikely, who cares? It doesn't have any significance. It's a little bit like the huge energy that's put out on trying to figure out who killed John Kennedy. Who knows? Who cares? Plenty of people get killed all the time, why does it matter that one of them happened to be John F. Kennedy?"

Let's just consider that for a moment. Chomsky is considering the possibilty -- however remote in his view -- that 9/11 may indeed have been an inside job. And he's saying it doesn't have any significance that the US goverment carried out an attack on its own population! It doesn't have any significance that the "war on terror" was launched on the basis of a lie!

This is the moment when Chomsky truly stood revealed. He was like the kid with his hand in the cookie jar who instantly concocts any number of excuses all of which contradict each other. And yet even when caught out like this, he has his supporters who say he "dispels 9/11 theories with sheer logic"!

milosevic says Dec, 3, 2018

https://www.youtube.com/embed/TwZ-vIaW6Bc?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&autohide=2&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&wmode=transparent

Makropulos says Dec, 3, 2018
That's the one. I mean – who knows and who cares? It's not as if a terrorist attack on mainland America that altered the face of New York and launched a war across the world is actually important.
Peter Bolton says Dec, 4, 2018
Well, I think the fact that Noam Chomsky has said this demonstrates how few people accept these 9/11 truther ideas -- even amongst people who generally agree with your (and my) kind of politics. George Galloway, who like Chomsky is about as far politically from the neocons as you can get, has also spoken very eloquently against trutherism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_A5ToK6g0m8

Ironically, the only remotely public figure who does that I've heard mentioned on this thread is some Reaganite crank that I had never heard of until now. That really does not bode well for you, does it?

Makropulos says Dec, 4, 2018
Au contraire Peter, it does not bode well for the entire realm of mainstream discourse. Logically what Chomsky said is simply monstrous. As is this:

"I think the fact that Noam Chomsky has said this demonstrates how few people accept these 9/11 truther ideas"

What is the hold that this man has that he only has to say something to "demonstrate" what most think?

Makropulos says Dec, 4, 2018
And having now listened to Mr Galloway and once again having to put up with his portentous stretching out ..of the ..sentence to -- quite frankly pad the time out, I see that his "points" come down to the following:

Two planes flew into the twin towers. Yes -- there's no disputing that one.

GW Bush could not possibly have planned the thing himself. Yes again -- no dispute. At this point I must express my gratitude to Reagan for finally proving that the guy in front is just a puppet.

If the US did it themselves and it "got out" it would be the end of America's credibility. Yes indeed. Which is why, all across the mainstream press, it will only ever be presented as a "nutty conspiracy theory"

milosevic says Dec, 4, 2018
Galloway: "I saw, myself, the airplanes hitting the twin towers."

-- which is supposed to constitute proof of the official Evil-Terrorists-In-A-Cave-In-Afghanistan story.

attention, "flaxgirl": your grand unified theory of 9/11 now needs to incorporate George Galloway as a fake witness for the US government, which seems strange, given his decades of opposition, both before and after, to the imperial warfare for which 9/11 served as a pretext.

The political function of the No-Planes-At-WTC claims could not be more clear; it's so that people who dispute other aspects of the Official Story can all be dismissed as deranged idiots.

flaxgirl says Dec, 4, 2018
But Peter you need to look at the evidence for yourself and not take others' word for it. And be guided by those who know how buildings collapse -- Chomsky certainly doesn't.
This is a wonderful tutorial by Richard Gage, founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

The story of 9/11 is utterly preposterous. The only reason people believe it is to do with psychology of how we relate to power nothing to do with the actuality of the story -- because it's utterly ludicrous.

flaxgirl says Dec, 4, 2018
Forgot link to tutorial: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ged-FIf46dc

This is my article on Chomsky's sophistry on 9/11:
https://off-guardian.org/2016/10/11/analysis-of-the-sophistry-of-noam-chomsky-on-911/

Jay-Q says Dec, 4, 2018
Wut? " less violent ones like England, the US or France " From here on it just gets worse until Chomsky has no credible position left to argue from.

Heightened sense of cognitive dissonance by old Noam.

' even if it were true, which is extremely unlikely, then who cares? It doesn't have any significance."

Wow, for someone with such intellect this is some low-level thinking. I almost feel sorry for Chomsky for holding such an immoral position. Would he feel the same way if his wife was murdered? "Ah, there's other things to worry about, anything else is a diversion of energy." Very sad.

flaxgirl says Dec, 4, 2018
Where basic physics is concerned we should not speak of theory. The only possible explanation for the collapse of the buildings is controlled demolition. There is no doubt whatsoever that 9/11 was an inside conspiracy. There is also no doubt that death and injury were staged – at least, there is zero evidence of its reality in the visual record and one would think that for the 3,000 dead and 6,000 injured claimed there would be at least one piece of evidence for their reality, rather than every piece (anomalously small in number) in the visual record perfectly fitting "staged". Not to mention other anomalies unrelated to the visual record and that actual killing and injuring of people by the perpetrators would take a highly-problematic form in the shape of a great number of loved ones (as opposed to the tiny number presented) and the injured themselves when controlled demolition was so obvious.
kevin morris says Dec, 4, 2018
When you say that there is no doubt whatsoever that 9/11 was an inside conspiracy, I feel you are being overconfident unless what you are saying is that there is some evidence that some figures at the World Trade Centres seemed to have foreknowledge.

Frankly, although we all have our theories as to who was responsible, I remain in full agreement with Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth who state simply that the official account conflicts with physics. All else is suspicion and supposition. It may well be well grounded supposition, but until we discover who planned and executed the event and who definitely had foreknowledge, what we are dealing with is speculation.

The problem with that is that the great many people who refuse to believe anything other than the official account of 9/11 dismiss our views as those of cranks

milosevic says Dec, 4, 2018
there is some evidence that some figures at the World Trade Centres seemed to have foreknowledge

https://www.youtube.com/embed/Wq-0JIR38V0?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&autohide=2&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&wmode=transparent

flaxgirl says Dec, 7, 2018
Kevin,

The buildings came down by controlled demolition. The evidence for that is incontrovertible and the rationale presented by NIST for fire being the cause is demonstrably not based on a skerrick of evidence and is obviously fraudulent and false. There is not a single reason to suspect that the cause of collapse of all the buildings wasn't controlled demolition. If you believe there is a single reason to suspect another cause can you please provide it.

Since waking up to 9/11, I find that people either decide something is something with too little evidence or refrain from deciding on what something is when the evidence is so overwhelming you're practically drowning in it. Being conservative in judgement in the face of overwhelming evidence is no virtue in my opinion.

I have engaged in conversation with Mick West who runs the metabunk.org website that allegedly debunks all the conspiracy theories. We have gone back and forth a number of times over the cause of WTC-7's collapse and I have invited him to respond to an Occam's Razor challenge to provide 10 points that favour "fire" over "controlled demolition". He did not respond to the challenge, nor could he provide a single point that favours fire over controlled demolition. Not a single point -- didn't change his mind though.
https://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/5000-challenge.html

Nor has anyone responded to my other Occam's Razor challenges. I judge when I see that there is a reasonable amount of evidence and that evidence points all one way and there is no evidence pointing any other way. If you disagree with this method fair enough.

flaxgirl says Dec, 7, 2018
And just to add, that, of course, it must be an inside job in the case of controlled demolition. As Graeme MacQueen says, there is no room in the official story for controlled demolition.

The big secret is though that death and injury were staged. That's the real secret.

flaxgirl says Dec, 4, 2018
It was a totally excellent piece. No reservations.

"Theory"? Are you serious? If you believe that 9/11 was the work of 19 barely-trained terrorists (one of whom cried when asked to do steep turns and stalls according to his alleged flying instructor but was tasked with the most impossibly-expert manoeuvre of doing a 330 degree turn into the Pentagon), armed with boxcutters who managed to hijack 4 planes, navigate them into 3 iconic buildings without being molested by a single fighter interceptor through the most defended airspace on earth, which subsequently caused the 10-second collapses (displaying all the characteristics of controlled demolition and none of fire-caused collapses) of three high-rise steel frame buildings, here's a $5,000 challenge for you. All you have to do is provide 10 points that support the "fire" hypothesis over the "controlled demolition" hypothesis for the collapse of WTC-7 and you can choose your own structural engineer to validate your points. There's so very much material on the collapse it shouldn't be very difficult. In fact, all you have to do is come up with one point to support WTC-7's collapse by fire and I'll give you $5,000. One point -- validated by a structural engineer of your choice. https://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/5000-challenge.html

9/11 is probably the biggest hoax in history and includes the very clever subhoax of 3,000 dead and 6,000 injured. Not only was it a hoax but they did not aim for realism in any shape or form and gave us extra clues in addition to their preposterous against-physical-and-administrative-reality story.

This is what Paul Craig Roberts, chairman of The Institute for Political Economy, who has had careers in scholarship and academia, journalism, public service, and business, has to say about 9/11.
https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/pages/about-paul-craig-roberts/

According to the official story, on September 11, 2001, the vaunted National Security State of the World's Only Superpower was defeated by a few young Saudi Arabians armed only with box cutters. The American National Security State proved to be totally helpless and was dealt the greatest humiliation ever inflicted on any country claiming to be a power.

That day no aspect of the National Security State worked. Everything failed.

The US Air Force for the first time in its history could not get intercepter jet fighters into the air.

The National Security Council failed.

All sixteen US intelligence agencies failed as did those of America's NATO and Israeli allies.

Air Traffic Control failed.

Airport Security failed four times at the same moment on the same day. The probability of such a failure is zero.

If such a thing had actually happened, there would have been demands from the White House, from Congress, and from the media for an investigation. Officials would have been held accountable for their failures. Heads would have rolled.

Instead, the White House resisted for one year the 9/11 families' demands for an investigation. Finally, a collection of politicians was assembled to listen to the government's account and to write it down. The chairman, vice chairman, and legal counsel of the 9/11 Commission have said that information was withheld from the commission, lies were told to the commission, and that the commission "was set up to fail." The worst security failure in history resulted in not a single firing. No one was held responsible.

Washington concluded that 9/11 was possible because America lacked a police state.
The PATRIOT Act, which was awaiting the event was quickly passed by the congressional idiots. The Act established executive branch independence of law and the Constitution. The Act and follow-up measures have institutionalized a police state in "the land of the free."

Osama bin Laden, a CIA asset dying of renal failure, was blamed despite his explicit denial. For the next ten years Osama bin Laden was the bogyman that provided the excuse for Washington to kill countless numbers of Muslims. Then suddenly on May 2, 2011, Obama claimed that US Navy SEALs had killed bin Laden in Pakistan. Eyewitnesses on the scene contradicted the White House's story. Osama bin Laden became the only human in history to survive renal failure for ten years. There was no dialysis machine in what was said to be bin Laden's hideaway. The numerous obituaries of bin Laden's death in December 2001 went down the memory hole. And the SEAL team died a few weeks later in a mysterious helicopter crash in Afghanistan. The thousands of sailors on the aircraft carrier from which bin Laden was said to have been dumped into the Indian Ocean wrote home that no such burial took place.

The fairy tale story of bin Laden's murder by Seal Team Six served to end the challenge by disappointed Democrats to Obama's nomination for a second term. It also freed the "war on terror" from the bin Laden constraint. Washington wanted to attack Libya, Syria, and Iran, countries in which bin Laden was known not to have organizations, and the succession of faked bin Laden videos, in which bin Laden grew progressively younger as the fake bin Laden claimed credit for each successive attack, had lost credibility among experts.

Watching the twin towers and WTC 7 come down, it was obvious to me that the buildings were not falling down as a result of structural damage. When it became clear that the White House had blocked an independent investigation of the only three steel skyscrapers in world history to collapse as a result of low temperature office fires, it was apparent that there was a coverup.

After 13 years people at home and abroad find the government's story less believable.
The case made by independent experts is now so compelling that mainstream media has opened to it. Here is Richard Gage of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth on C-SPAN: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Zbv2SvBEec#t=23

Anticitizen one says Dec, 4, 2018
The only thing that surprises me about 9/11 these days is that new evidence linking Russia to the event hasn't been fabricated, sorry, discovered yet.

[Nov 22, 2018] PressTV-Trump leaking out forbidden truth of 9-11

Notable quotes:
"... "And, the media always goes after Trump when he says things about 9/11 that let out a little bit of truth, when Trump talked about the dancing Muslims celebrating 9/11 in New Jersey. Of course, that was taken by many as a bleak reference to the dancing Israelis that's the Mossad agents who widely celebrated the success of their operation, and flipped cigarette lighters and held them up for cameras and video cameras as they celebrated during the fire and then the explosive destruction of the world trade center," he stated. ..."
"... They believe that rogue elements within the US government, such as former Vice President Dick Cheney, orchestrated or at least encouraged the 9/11 attacks in order to accelerate the US war machine and advance the Zionist agenda. ..."
Nov 22, 2018 | www.presstv.com

US President Donald Trump is leaking out a little bit of forbidden truth about the false flag operation of 9/11, American scholar Dr. Kevin Barrett says.

Dr. Barrett, a founding member of the Scientific Panel for the Investigation of 9/11 , made the remarks in an interview with Press TV on Tuesday while commenting on a verbal between Trump and Adm. William H. McRaven, the former Navy SEAL commander who oversaw the mission to kill Osama bin Laden.

Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said on Monday that Trump's attacks against the retired Navy admiral was "a slam at the intelligence community." "What this really is misplaced criticism McRaven," Clapper said. "It's really a slam at the intelligence community, who was responsible for tracking down Osama bin Laden, and reflects, I think, his complete ignorance about what that took."

In an interview that aired Sunday on Fox News, Trump dismissed McRaven as a "Hillary Clinton fan" and an "Obama backer".

PressTV- 'Trump could be killed for 9/11 truth' An American scholar says the full truth about the 9/11 coup d'état is probably too politically explosive for Donald Trump to ever tell.

"I would see this is an example of Trump leaking out a little bit of forbidden truth. He has done this before regarding 9/11 and bin Laden issues, for example when he blamed the 9/11 on George W. Bush. That was of course too much for a lot of Republicans but it did not hurt his ability to gain Republican nomination," Dr. Barrett said.

"And, the media always goes after Trump when he says things about 9/11 that let out a little bit of truth, when Trump talked about the dancing Muslims celebrating 9/11 in New Jersey. Of course, that was taken by many as a bleak reference to the dancing Israelis that's the Mossad agents who widely celebrated the success of their operation, and flipped cigarette lighters and held them up for cameras and video cameras as they celebrated during the fire and then the explosive destruction of the world trade center," he stated.

Dr. Barrett, an American academic who has been studying the events of 9/11 since late 2003, pointed out that the rogue elements within the US government and neocons orchestrated had approved the 9/11 terrorist plan to benefit Israel.

The September, 11, 2001 attacks, also known as the 9/11 attacks, were a series of strikes in the US which killed nearly 3,000 people and caused about $10 billion worth of property and infrastructure damage.

US officials assert that the attacks were carried out by 19 al-Qaeda terrorists but many experts have raised questions about the official account.

They believe that rogue elements within the US government, such as former Vice President Dick Cheney, orchestrated or at least encouraged the 9/11 attacks in order to accelerate the US war machine and advance the Zionist agenda.


Leonard Melton , yesterday at 00:06

How convenient that real estate developer Larry Silverstein was willing to take over the buildings – in late July of 2001, only weeks before the attacks. He signed a 99-year lease with the Port Authority – then proceeded to take out several insurance policies on the buildings. (He was originally outbid by a competitor, Vornado Real Estate Trust – but this bid was withdrawn when the Port Authority refused to reduce the terms of the lease.)

Interestingly, Silverstein was also the builder of Building No. 7.

As of 2007, Silverstein had received in excess of $4.6 billion from his insurers. Not a bad return on a $14 million investment, eh?

Leonard Melton -> Leonard Melton 23 hours ago
"9/11: Larry Silverstein Designed New WTC-7 One Year Before Attacks"

Larry Silverstein was caught admitting on camera that he planned to build an entirely new World Trade Center 7 (WTC-7) building one year before the 9/11 attacks had occurred, by Sean Adl-Tabatabai - Your News Wire

Leonard Melton , yesterday at 00:05
According to some estimates, the Twin Towers contained 5000 tons of asbestos materials. As long ago as the mid-1990s, the New York Port Authority was looking at an asbestos abatement bill of as much as $1 billion dollars – representing well over 12 times the buildings' original cost. When the buildings' insurers, Affiliated FM, refused to cover the asbestos removal/abatement costs and won their subsequent lawsuit over the the matter, the Port Authority was left with some untenable choices. The outdated buildings could not be demolished because of the asbestos; for the same reason, they could not be remodeled and updated in any cost-effective manner. The only other option was to slowly dismantle the Towers a piece at a time – the cost of which would have run into several billions of dollars.

[Nov 19, 2018] The way that WTC 7 is so strenuously avoided and brushed aside by the Establishment, and even by many commenters here, stinks

Nov 19, 2018 | www.unz.com

Harold Smith , says: November 17, 2018 at 6:24 pm GMT

@Frederick V. Reed "Regarding Nine-Eleven: Until someone who actually know the business of controlled demolition shows what specifically would have been needed, used how without being noticed, to produce the collapse, it will remain just another empty conspiracy theory."

I wonder if Fred's house burnt down under suspicious circumstances, e.g., there was some evidence that an accelerant was involved; and neighbors reported suspicious activity near the house before the fire started; and then Fred had the debris hauled away before it could be examined; and as a matter of public record Fred announced beforehand that his house might burn down; and Fred was known to be having financial problems; and Fred was caught telling a lie about the circumstances; and Fred sought to collect a huge insurance payment, etc.; would the state police fire marshal dismiss it all as an "empty conspiracy theory". I think not; rather, I think Fred would be in some serious trouble.

Harold Smith , says: November 17, 2018 at 6:53 pm GMT
@James Speaks "The burning jet fuel caused the floor trusses to sag."

No it didn't; most or all of the jet fuel burnt up in a cloud outside of the buildings.

By the way, as a threshold issue, if 9/11 was "legitimate" why did the perpetrators have to go through the trouble and take the risk of putting imposter Hymie Brown on national TV, falsely claiming him to be the "architect" and "project engineer" of the towers, and having him tell lies about the towers?

Low Voltage , says: November 17, 2018 at 8:34 pm GMT
@Frederick V. Reed The only interesting question remaining about 911 is whether the same group who planned the destruction of the twin towers also demolished WTC 7. Even though all three supposedly succumbed to fire, WTC 7 resembles a classic demolition while 1 and 2 exploded. These were obviously different techniques at work.

I began to wonder if some rival faction within the establishment demolished WTC 7 just to spoil the cover story for the Bin Laden angle for leverage in other areas, or the did the perpetrators themselves do it so the American people would have no plausible deniability when the day of reckoning finally comes? After all, what sort of infantile and wicked population could allow the crimes committed by its government after such a preposterous false flag operation? Surely, they deserve to be stripped of everything they have (especially Social Security ;).

Anon [218] Disclaimer , says: November 17, 2018 at 9:47 pm GMT
@SafeNow "And don't forget WTC Bldg 7, which was not hit by a fuel-leaking plane at all, and yet pancaked down just like the towers. And by the way, a BBC reporter reported the bldg 7 collapse occurred -- past tense -- 20 minutes BEFORE the collapse happened. Oops."

This is truly the deciding argument for me, how can anyone not believe a conspiracy was afoot that day when the BBC got their signals crossed and reported a completely unlikely event before it actually happened?

JLK , says: November 18, 2018 at 12:00 am GMT
Everybody is entitled to an opinion, but if the government is sending people to sow confusion on the collapse of these buildings it is a criminal offense and should be prosecuted as such.
Wally , says: November 18, 2018 at 5:46 am GMT
@NoseytheDuke Bingo!

https://www.ae911truth.org/

Jeff Stryker , says: November 18, 2018 at 9:43 am GMT
@Patricus

Bush clearly intended to invade Iraq in 1990 and the Clinton presidency merely put this on hold for 9 years until Bush II was elected. The son was little more than a puppet for his father, his father's donors and his father's money. Bush II was merely an alcoholic bum. It was clearly his Dad's oil interests controlling him.

Johnny Walker Read , says: November 18, 2018 at 1:42 pm GMT
@Z-man The twin towers were were 110 stories high and were very strongly built, both were designed to withstand two strikes by Boeing 707′s. The biggest hole in your "collapse" theory is the lack of a debris pile. With the collapse of a building that high the debris pile should have been somewhere around 14 stories high. The debris pile was virtually missing. Have a look at the linked photo and tell me where the debris piles are. This photo was taken before any debris could have been removed as Building 7 is still standing.
anonymous [340] Disclaimer , says: November 18, 2018 at 1:51 pm GMT
@James Speaks " and probably 7."

I'm no expert on your technical issues, either.

But I have a keen nose for discomfort masked with dissembling.

And the way that WTC 7 is so strenuously avoided and brushed aside by the Establishment, and even by many commenters here, stinks.

Ernesto Che , says: November 18, 2018 at 2:04 pm GMT
@L. Ross @L. Ross: so you believe that a bunch of angry fundamentalists managed to outsmart all 17 US intelligence agencies and those of NATO and Israel, the National Security Council, the Transportation Safety Administration, Air Traffic Control, and Dick Cheney, hijacked four US airliners on one morning, brought down three World Trade Center skyscrapers, destroyed that part of the Pentagon where research was underway into the missing $2.3 trillion, and caused the morons in Washington to blame Afghanistan instead of Saudi Arabia?

If so, you urgently need to educate yourself. If not, tell us why it was not a controlled demolition.

Bill Jones , says: November 18, 2018 at 3:15 pm GMT
@BB753 One more time.

The Official Version of 9/11 goes something like this

Directed by a beardy-guy from a cave in Afghanistan, ( This well appointed Suite http://www.edwardjayepstein.com/nether_fictoid3.htm according to the London Times): nineteen hard-drinking, coke-snorting, devout Muslims enjoy lap dances before their mission to meet Allah

Using nothing more than craft knifes, they overpower cabin crew, passengers and pilots on four planes. And hangover or not, they manage to give the world's most sophisticated air defense system the slip.

Unfazed by leaving their "How to Fly a Passenger Jet" guide in the car at the airport, they master the controls in no-time and score direct hits on two towers, causing THREE to collapse completely

Our masterminds even manage to overpower the odd law of physics or two and the world watches in awe as steel-framed buildings fall symmetrically -- through their own mass -- at free-fall speed, for the first time in history.

Despite all their dastardly cunning, they stupidly give their identity away by using explosion-proof passports, which survive the fireball undamaged and fall to the ground only to be discovered by the incredible crime-fighting sleuths at the FBI

Meanwhile down in Washington

Hani Hanjour, having previously flunked 2-man Cessna flying school, gets carried away with all the success of the day and suddenly finds incredible abilities behind the controls of a Boeing. Instead of flying straight down into the large roof area of the Pentagon, he decides to show off a little

Executing an incredible 270 degree downward spiral, he levels off to hit the low facade of the world's most heavily defended building

all without a single shot being fired . or ruining the nicely mowed lawn and all at a speed just too fast to capture on video

Later, in the skies above Pennsylvania

So desperate to talk to loved ones before their death, some passengers use sheer willpower to connect mobile calls that otherwise would not be possible until several years later

And following a heroic attempt by some to retake control of Flight 93, it crashes into a Shankesville field leaving no trace of engines, fuselage or occupants except for the standard issue Muslim terrorists bandana

Further south in Florida

President Bush, our brave Commander-in-Chief continues to read "My Pet Goat" to a class full of primary school children shrugging off the obvious possibility that his life could be in imminent danger

In New York

World Trade Center leaseholder Larry Silverstein blesses his own foresight in insuring the buildings against terrorist attack only six weeks previously

While back in Washington, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz shake their heads in disbelief at their own luck in getting the 'New Pearl Harbor' catalyzing event they so desired to pursue their agenda of world domination

And finally, not to be disturbed too much by reports of their own deaths, at least seven of our nineteen suicide hijackers turn up alive and kicking in mainstream media reports

And If you don't believe this, you are a conspiracy theorist.

Agent76 , says: November 18, 2018 at 3:36 pm GMT
@Johnny Walker Read Sep 11, 2013 9/11 In A Nutshell

James Corbett presents this 5 minute parody of the official conspiracy theory of 9/11

September 11, 2013 Twelve Years of War, Lies and Deception

Twelve years after the 9/11 attacks, no credible independent investigation has been done to find out what really happened on that day and who was responsible.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/911-twelve-years-of-war-lies-and-deception/5349347

pioneer , says: November 18, 2018 at 4:10 pm GMT
@72 Paul2

I am amazed that there seem still to be people who believe the official 9/11 propaganda bull*.

They don't believe the Gospel According To NIST. And I find it hard to believe you believe they believe it ** .

'They' are shills & operators. The 911 myth must be defended at all costs – the empire insists. For the one's who might genuinely believe, no need to waste time answering them as they're too stupid to matter.

** Calling Donald Rumsfeld.

anarchyst , says: November 18, 2018 at 4:12 pm GMT
@Simply Simon "Every large controlled demolition I witnessed shows massive explosions at ground level." Not true
Internal pillars can be taken out without showing any evidence of demolition from the outside of a building.
Every large controlled demolition that I have witnessed did not show "massive explosions" at ground level, but rather momentary flashes of light, with the building then collapsing into its own footprint.
Tom Welsh , says: November 18, 2018 at 4:35 pm GMT
@Agent76 Thanks Agent 76. That video is actually amazingly funny -- and, partly because it's so funny, it packs a devastating punch. Seeing all the loose ends and nonsensical inconsistencies bundled together and delivered in fast-forward mode is hugely convincing.
Ilyana_Rozumova , says: November 18, 2018 at 7:07 pm GMT
@Z-man Your Quote
Two WTC went down first even though it was hit second because the plane hit lower and at an angle with more damage to more floors and more mass above to accelerate the collapse.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Congratulation.
You hit the bulls eye of the shit.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Watch the collapse again.
In both cases collapse started with the uppermost floor falling on the floor below.
And so because second tower was hit close to hour later and the position of the impact was several stories lower, the heat influence on the uppermost connection of trusses was considerably lower than in first hit tower.
Simple thermodynamics will confirm it to you.
..
When you will watch the collapse of first building (second hit)
You will notice the part of the building was tilting, before cascading begin.
That contradicts laws of physics.
..It was controlled demolition with exploding charges at trusses connections.
There should not be any doubt about it.

[Nov 12, 2018] Protecting Americans from foreign influence, smells with COINTELPRO. Structural witch-hunt effect like during the McCarthy era is designed to supress decent to neoliberal oligarcy by Andre Damon and Joseph Kishore

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... There is something very, very COINTELPRO about the idea of "protecting" Americans from "foreign influence", and that should give liberals the heebie-jeebies. There is also an ongoing structural witch-hunt effect, unchanged from the McCarthy era, when internet firm heads are called to testify before congress. ..."
"... Bottom line - the Russians may have had no more effect on the election than the loose change in your house has on your salary. ..."
"... "Even more extreme measures are being planned and implemented, motivated by the basic principle that the greater the lie, the more aggressive the methods required to enforce it." ..."
"... "While the extortionate salaries commanded by the BBC's biggest stars are justified by "market rates," this underlying premise is never challenged by the women who are leading the gender pay fight. They don't oppose the capitalist market; they just want a bigger slice of the pie, with the working class footing the bill via contributions to the £4 billion annual license fee." - BBC gender pay row: Selective outrage of wealthy women ..."
"... The greater the inequality, the greater the lie to enforce it. ..."
"... While WSWS was uniquely correct in exposing Bush, Powell, and the ruling-elite structure of the U.S. as using deceit and lies to start an 'aggressive war' (the ultimate war crime), your description of this corrupt system of global power headquartered in the U.S. did not fully diagnose and expose it for what it was; a disguised global capitalist EMPIRE. ..."
"... Your description could have more effectively warned American citizen/'subjects' and the world that "Rather, it is a war of colonial (Empire) conquest, driven by a series of economic and geo-political aims that center on the seizure of Iraq's oil resources and the assertion of US global (Empire, not merely) hegemony." ..."
"... In any case, Andre and Joseph, thanks for reminding readers of this dark and deceitful moment of U.S. history in starting another 'aggressive war' almost two decades ago --- which wars will unfortunately continue until Americans themselves expose and ignite an essential Second America "Revolution Against Empire" [Justin duRivage] ..."
"... The Anglo-American-Israelite Empire is globally entrenched and enjoying expansion since 1945 ..."
"... I must admit myself I am disturbed by the sheer volume of unchallenged propaganda regarding these claims in the past few months. The media talking heads and various analysts don't ever really say what the implication of what their claims really mean-war. We are in an age of new mccarthyism ..."
"... What was amazing about Powell's charade was that even if Old Bad Ass as I call Saddam had had some Wombars of Mass Destruction they posed no danger whatsoever! It was obvious 9/11 had put the masses into a tizzy and they would have attacked Mars if told to! ..."
"... Yes, the "New Pearl Harbour" called for and carried out by the authors of the "Project for a New American Century" worked as planned. ..."
"... Quite right. My late father was a structural design engineer, specializing in large steel structures like the WTC and he called it as soon as the buildings imploded! ..."
"... Yes, Michael, the 'media/propaganda-sector' of this seven-sectored Disguised Global Capitalist EMPIRE is currently the most effective sector --- but the other six; corporate, financial, militarist, extra-legal, CFR 'Plot-Tanks', and of course the dual-party Vichy-political facade of the 'rougher-talking' neocon 'R' Vichy Party and the 'smoother-lying' neoliberal-con 'D' Vichy Party are all helping to keep the Empire sound, hidden, and empowered over the only American citizen/'subjects' who could possibly form a "Political Revolution against Empire" ..."
"... While it is true that D.C. is run by delusional psychotics that does not mean they are irrational as far as their greed is concerned. ..."
"... As R. Luxemburg pleaded that WWI was not "our" war but war of bunch of aristocrats wanting to divide colonies and bunch of bankers wanted their bad speculative loans repaid, using working class flesh and blood. ..."
Feb 20, 2018 | www.wsws.org

Wnt1a month ago

This is one of the most sensible editorials on the Russia issue I've seen, and it is true, insofar as it goes. There is something very, very COINTELPRO about the idea of "protecting" Americans from "foreign influence", and that should give liberals the heebie-jeebies. There is also an ongoing structural witch-hunt effect, unchanged from the McCarthy era, when internet firm heads are called to testify before congress.

That said, I wouldn't dismiss the effect of the Russian involvement, or the relevance of the charges against Trump and his people. Bear in mind that the Party of McCarthy has been all about spying on its opponents from the days of HUAC. Nixon's break-in at the Watergate Hotel didn't singlehandedly decide the election ... but who would believe that was the only underhanded tactic he used? Republicans believe that if you're not cheating, you're not trying -- holding out for any ethical standard makes you inherently disloyal and unworthy of support. Something like Kavanaugh's involvement in the hacking of Democrats in 2003 ( http://www.foxnews.com/poli... ) should be no surprise; neither should the "Guccifer" hack that put the Democrats' data in the hands of Wikileaks. (Their subsequent attempts to demand Wikileaks not publish such a newsworthy leak, of course, is the sort of thing that undermines their position with me!)

Bottom line - the Russians may have had no more effect on the election than the loose change in your house has on your salary.

But if you go back in your house after the Republicans were minding it, don't be surprised if together with the missing couch change you notice some missing silverware, your kitchen tap has been sawed off, and the laptop is short half its RAM. By the time you've catalogued everything missing, the stolen brass part from the gas main downstairs might have blown you to smithereens.

Greg8 months ago
"Even more extreme measures are being planned and implemented, motivated by the basic principle that the greater the lie, the more aggressive the methods required to enforce it."

There are many reasons the bourgeoisie is unfit to rule. Each one of them is bound up with the lies required to enforce its rule. The greater its unfitness, "the greater the lie, the more aggressive the methods required to enforce it.

"While the extortionate salaries commanded by the BBC's biggest stars are justified by "market rates," this underlying premise is never challenged by the women who are leading the gender pay fight. They don't oppose the capitalist market; they just want a bigger slice of the pie, with the working class footing the bill via contributions to the £4 billion annual license fee." - BBC gender pay row: Selective outrage of wealthy women

The greater the inequality, the greater the lie to enforce it.

Alan MacDonald8 months ago
While WSWS was uniquely correct in exposing Bush, Powell, and the ruling-elite structure of the U.S. as using deceit and lies to start an 'aggressive war' (the ultimate war crime), your description of this corrupt system of global power headquartered in the U.S. did not fully diagnose and expose it for what it was; a disguised global capitalist EMPIRE.

Your description could have more effectively warned American citizen/'subjects' and the world that "Rather, it is a war of colonial (Empire) conquest, driven by a series of economic and geo-political aims that center on the seizure of Iraq's oil resources and the assertion of US global (Empire, not merely) hegemony."

In any case, Andre and Joseph, thanks for reminding readers of this dark and deceitful moment of U.S. history in starting another 'aggressive war' almost two decades ago --- which wars will unfortunately continue until Americans themselves expose and ignite an essential Second America "Revolution Against Empire" [Justin duRivage]

Ambricourt -> Alan MacDonald8 months ago
The Anglo-American-Israelite Empire is globally entrenched and enjoying expansion since 1945. It is time radical critiques of its values, power and methods should call it by its right name.
Bob Marley8 months ago
I must admit myself I am disturbed by the sheer volume of unchallenged propaganda regarding these claims in the past few months. The media talking heads and various analysts don't ever really say what the implication of what their claims really mean-war. We are in an age of new mccarthyism
michaelroloff8 months ago
What was amazing about Powell's charade was that even if Old Bad Ass as I call Saddam had had some Wombars of Mass Destruction they posed no danger whatsoever! It was obvious 9/11 had put the masses into a tizzy and they would have attacked Mars if told to!
Terry Lawrence -> michaelroloff8 months ago
Yes, the "New Pearl Harbour" called for and carried out by the authors of the "Project for a New American Century" worked as planned.
michaelroloff -> Terry Lawrence8 months ago
don't tell me that you think that the blow-back that was 9/11 is a conspiracy - if you do, be so kind as to mention specific conspirators!
Terry Lawrence -> michaelroloff8 months ago
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rice, are a few obvious ones, . . . and that famous CIA asset, Bin Laden, to recruit the expendable hijackers.
michaelroloff -> Terry Lawrence8 months ago
just because it was a convenient act for them to do what they wanted in conquering iraq is not reason that idiots like that are capable of planning and concealing the numerous co-conspirators to arrange something like 9..11. imperialism can always count on blowback to have occasion for further crimes. there is the slim chance that they knew what was being planned and that they let it happen - except that none of those folks is evil enough for that. not even dick cheney. what i love about all conspiracy theories of the american kind is that they never nam or show an actual conspirator conspiring. look at one of the truly great failed conspiracy, that of the 20th july 1944 in germany that was meant to kill hitler and how many people were arrested in no time at all and executed..
Terry Lawrence michaelroloff8 months ago
A "conspiracy" is just any two or more people getting together to discuss something affecting one or more other people without them being party to the discussion. Like a surprise birthday party, for instance. Obviously the "official" version of the 9/11 events is also a "conspiracy theory" that 19 mostly Saudi Arabians led by a guy hiding in a cave in Afghanistan conspired to carry out co-ordinated attacks that just happened to coincide with most of the USAF being conveniently off in Alaska and northern Canada on an exercise that day, and another "coinciding exercise" simulating a multiple hijacking being carried out in the northeast US thereby confusing the Air Traffic Controllers as to whether the hijackings were "real world or exercise", significantly delaying the response, among other things.

Do you really believe that WTC 7, a steel frame building which was not adjacent to WTC 1 & 2, and was NOT hit by any airplanes, coincidentally collapsed due to low temperature paper and furniture office fires? Something that has never happened before or since? Or that such low temperature fires would cause the massive heavily reinforced concrete central core/elevator shaft to collapse first, pulling the rest of the building inward onto it in classic controlled demolition technique?

It is getting more difficult to find the videos showing that now as Google, as with WSWS articles, is pushing them off the front pages of results, while Snopes has put out a some very misleading reports that set up false "straw man" claims and then "disprove" them. Even the "disproofs" are false.

For instance, a Snopes report on the WTC 7 collapse states: "relied heavily on discredited claims, none of which were new, including:

Jet fuel cannot melt steel beams (This claim is misleading, as steel beams do to not need to melt completely to be compromised structurally).

A sprinkler system would have prevented temperatures from rising high enough to cause to cause structural damage. (This claim ignores the fact that a crash from a 767 jet would likely destroy such a system.)

The structural system would have been protected by fireproofing material (similarly, such a system would have been damaged in a 767 crash). "

Jet fuel, which is Kerosene, burns at around 575º in open air, which was the case in WTC buildings 1 & 2. Most of it was vaporized by the impact with the buildings and burned of within minutes. At any rate, 575º is far below the point at which structural steel specifically designed to withstand high temperature fires like that used in the World Trade Centre buildings is weakened.

All of which is irrelevant, as are the other "points" made by Snopes, because Building 7 was not hit by an airplane and there was no jet fuel involved. Something conveniently "overlooked" by Snopes and other similar misleading "disproofs". Not to mention that the Intelligence establishment is busy putting out false trails constantly which use, for instance, obviously faked photos or videos of the three WTC buildings collapsing to discredit the real videos and photos by setting up "straw men" they can then "disprove" and point to as "evidence" that people who don't believe the official version are "creating fake news".

liz_imp Terry Lawrence8 months ago
Brilliant points!! :)
Carolyn Zaremba Terry Lawrence8 months ago
Quite right. My late father was a structural design engineer, specializing in large steel structures like the WTC and he called it as soon as the buildings imploded!
Terry Lawrence michaelroloff8 months ago
"The perpetrators and their conspiracy is not a theory since it has been proved."

By "proved" I assume you are referring to "proofs" such as the fantastical claim that Mohammed Atta's passport was allegedly and fortuitously "found" when it supposedly survived the 600 mph impact of the 767 he was supposedly piloting with a huge steel and concrete building, survived the huge fireball it was supposedly in the middle of unscorched, and conveniently fluttered to the ground intact to land at the feet of an FBI agent who immediately realized it must have belonged to one of the hijackers!

Even Hans Christian Andersen couldn't invent Fairy Tales like that.

Carolyn Zaremba michaelroloff8 months ago
See my comment above. It is the "official" explanation that is a fantasy.
michaelroloff Carolyn Zaremba8 months ago
the best that conspiracy theorist can do is, invariably, to call proven facts "just another theory " which only proves that they are actually aware that they are full of hot air! zarembas father as a structural engineer unless a fantasy is certainly better off among the dead than among the living and perpetrating his ignorance of steel and weight and fire onto the world!
clubmarkgirard michaelroloff8 months ago
Just because all the details aren't known as to who conspired and why there's enough holes in the "official conspiracy theory" of 19 hijackers to conclude that this could not have been pulled off without some conspiring on the American side. Certainly the the neocons benefited greatly from these attacks. So motive is there for sure.
Alan MacDonald michaelroloff8 months ago
Yes, Michael, the 'media/propaganda-sector' of this seven-sectored Disguised Global Capitalist EMPIRE is currently the most effective sector --- but the other six; corporate, financial, militarist, extra-legal, CFR 'Plot-Tanks', and of course the dual-party Vichy-political facade of the 'rougher-talking' neocon 'R' Vichy Party and the 'smoother-lying' neoliberal-con 'D' Vichy Party are all helping to keep the Empire sound, hidden, and empowered over the only American citizen/'subjects' who could possibly form a "Political Revolution against Empire"
Kalen8 months ago
While it is true that D.C. is run by delusional psychotics that does not mean they are irrational as far as their greed is concerned.

There is nothing to win in global nuke war, all know it while the outcome would be surely the current global oligarchy loosing grip on population destroying the system that works for them so well giving chance to what they dread socialist revolution they would have been much weaker to counter.

Regional conflicts are just positioning of oligarchy for management of global oligarchic country club while strict class morality is maintained.

What I do not we are conditions for war (split of global ruling elites) while what I see is broad propaganda of war as a excuse to clamp down on fake enemy in order to control respective populations while there is factual unity among world oligarchy.

As R. Luxemburg pleaded that WWI was not "our" war but war of bunch of aristocrats wanting to divide colonies and bunch of bankers wanted their bad speculative loans repaid, using working class flesh and blood.

She died abandoned by those on the left who embraced the war for their political aspirations, she was murdered for her true internationalism i.e. No war fought between working people of one country and working people of another country.

Alan MacDonald Kalen8 months ago
Kalen, it's only effective to use the correct and understandable term 'Empire' in exposing, warning, and motivating average Americans --- since very few even know what words like; oligarchy, plutocracy, fascism, authoritarianism, corporate-state, or Wolin's 'inverted totalitarianism' mean --- let alone could ever serve as rallying cries for the coming essential Second American Revolution against EMPIRE.

As Pat would have shouted if Tom had taken the Paine to edit his call, "Give me Liberty over EMPIRE, or Give me Death!"

Carolyn Zaremba Alan MacDonald8 months ago
Do you really believe that average Americans are that stupid? Shame on you!
Alan MacDonald Carolyn Zaremba8 months ago
"Sweet Carolyn" OH OH OH --- Yes, only a very small percentage of Americans understand that our former country, the U.S. of America, is categorically, provably, and absolutely a new form of Empire, and is inexorably the first in world history an; 'effectively-disguised', 'truly-global', 'dual-party Vichy', and 'capitalist-fueled' EMPIRE --- an EMPIRE, really just an EMPIRE!

Just do an honest survey, "Sweet Carolyn", yourself, and if you're not a "Sweet Liarlyn", you will have to admit that essentially ZERO of the first 1000 people you ask, will say --- "Oh ya, Carolyn, of course I know that this whole effin 'system' that others less informed may still be so stupid that they think they live in a real country, when I (enter their name) do solemnly swear is just an effin EMPIRE, which is so well disguised, that these few idiots who don't understand that they are just citizen/'subjects' of this monsterous EMPIRE."

Do the survey, "Sweet Carolyn" and if you don't lie to yourself --- which maybe you do, because HELL, your job is to lie to others (so it's quite likely that you'll lie about anything) --- you'll find that exactly zero average Americans have the effin slightest idea in the world that their great 'country' is actually an effin EMPIRE.

HELL, Carolyn, almost half the Americans repeatedly yell, "We're number ONE", "We're number ONE", that their brains would rather rattle themselves to death than even let logic, history, knowledge, or anything into their addled and propaganda filled heads!

liz_imp Alan MacDonald8 months ago
Personal attacks are not allowed on this site.
Alan MacDonald liz_imp8 months ago
Sorry, Liz-imp, are you a friend of "Sweet Carolyn" --- or some other relation? Perhaps working together?
dmorista8 months ago
Excellent article, and it did a particularly good job of tying together the foreign policy and domestic policy stratagems of a major faction of the U.S. ruling class. I, for one, do not doubt that the Russians conduct some sort of cyber warfare against the U.S.; but that must be understood by considering the fact that every major governmental, political, military, and business organization on the face of the Earth must now operate in this manner. A friend of mine's son, who was in the Army, pointed out that the big players, by a wide margin, in spying on and to some degree interfering in the U.S. domestic scene are China and Israel. Kevin Barrett has written and said on various radio shows that much of what is attributed to the "Russians" are actually the actions of Russian/Israeli dual citizens, many of whom move freely between the U.S., Russia, and Israel. And, of course, the U.S. runs major spy and manipulation operations in more countries than any other nation of Earth, and U.S. based corporations are busy both inside the U.S. and in foreign places in similar activities.

It is clearly a desire of significant sectors, of the Capitalist rulers of the U.S., to repress dissent and political activities that oppose their agendas. It took them a few years to realize that their old methods using TV, hate radio, magazines, direct mail, and newspapers were losing their effectiveness. They have been increasing their attacks on leftist websites, hacking into websites, closing websites using phonied-up "national security" justifications, employing numerous trolls, and establishing and funding more far right websites, such as Breitbart and Infowars. These efforts are most effective when they are not overpowering and heavy handed.

The classic book on this was the 1988 book "Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media" by Noam Chomsky and Edward Hermann. Rob Williams has updated the concept for the internet age in
<http: www.vermontindependent.org ="" the-post-truth-world-reviving-the-propaganda-model-of-news-for-our-digital-age=""/>.

The strategy is nothing new, the methods are merely updated and use the latest technologies.

Maxwell dmorista8 months ago
Superb post.

I guess the lesson to be learned here is that rigging elections through byzantine electoral laws and billion dollar corporate slush funds is a thing of the past. All you need now is 13 amateur IT goomba's with a marketing scheme and twitter accounts. Well, sure is a fragile "World's Sole Superpower" we got here. Go Team?

[Nov 02, 2018] All of which is irrelevant, as are the other "points" made by Snopes, because Building 7 was not hit by an airplane and there was no jet fuel involved

Nov 02, 2018 | www.wsws.org

Terry Lawrence michaelroloff8 months ago

A "conspiracy" is just any two or more people getting together to discuss something affecting one or more other people without them being party to the discussion. Like a surprise birthday party, for instance. Obviously the "official" version of the 9/11 events is also a "conspiracy theory" that 19 mostly Saudi Arabians led by a guy hiding in a cave in Afghanistan conspired to carry out co-ordinated attacks that just happened to coincide with most of the USAF being conveniently off in Alaska and northern Canada on an exercise that day, and another "coinciding exercise" simulating a multiple hijacking being carried out in the northeast US thereby confusing the Air Traffic Controllers as to whether the hijackings were "real world or exercise", significantly delaying the response, among other things.

Do you really believe that WTC 7, a steel frame building which was not adjacent to WTC 1 & 2, and was NOT hit by any airplanes, coincidentally collapsed due to low temperature paper and furniture office fires? Something that has never happened before or since? Or that such low temperature fires would cause the massive heavily reinforced concrete central core/elevator shaft to collapse first, pulling the rest of the building inward onto it in classic controlled demolition technique?

It is getting more difficult to find the videos showing that now as Google, as with WSWS articles, is pushing them off the front pages of results, while Snopes has put out a some very misleading reports that set up false "straw man" claims and then "disprove" them. Even the "disproofs" are false.

For instance, a Snopes report on the WTC 7 collapse states: "relied heavily on discredited claims, none of which were new, including:

Jet fuel cannot melt steel beams (This claim is misleading, as steel beams do to not need to melt completely to be compromised structurally).

A sprinkler system would have prevented temperatures from rising high enough to cause to cause structural damage. (This claim ignores the fact that a crash from a 767 jet would likely destroy such a system.)

The structural system would have been protected by fireproofing material (similarly, such a system would have been damaged in a 767 crash). "

Jet fuel, which is Kerosene, burns at around 575º in open air, which was the case in WTC buildings 1 & 2. Most of it was vaporized by the impact with the buildings and burned of within minutes. At any rate, 575º is far below the point at which structural steel specifically designed to withstand high temperature fires like that used in the World Trade Centre buildings is weakened.

All of which is irrelevant, as are the other "points" made by Snopes, because Building 7 was not hit by an airplane and there was no jet fuel involved. Something conveniently "overlooked" by Snopes and other similar misleading "disproofs". Not to mention that the Intelligence establishment is busy putting out false trails constantly which use, for instance, obviously faked photos or videos of the three WTC buildings collapsing to discredit the real videos and photos by setting up "straw men" they can then "disprove" and point to as "evidence" that people who don't believe the official version are "creating fake news".

[Sep 14, 2018] The official government investigation of the WTC Building 7 collapse is dead wrong

Sep 14, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

S | Sep 13, 2018 2:15:10 AM@Den Lille Abe:

You might want to check this out: "WTC 7 Did Not Collapse from Fire" - Dr. Leroy Hulsey, UAF, Sept. 6, 2017 . Dr. Hulsey is a real Professor of Structural Engineering and a Department Chair at the University of Alaska Fairbanks -- not some kooky guy with a fake diploma. His conclusion: the official government investigation of the WTC Building 7 collapse is dead wrong. The main problem is that the building model used in the official investigation entirely omitted an important structural element that prevented lateral movement of the girders. I highly recommend watching the presentation.

[Sep 12, 2018] Amazing that the Veterans' letter was sent on the 9/11 in protest to the US government support for Al Qaeda.

Sep 12, 2018 | www.unz.com

annamaria , says: Next New Comment September 11, 2018 at 10:20 pm GMT

@RVBlake Cheney stated he had "other things to do" during the Vietnam War. Bolton stated he had no intention of dying in a war that was already lost. Ironic, given the eagerness with which both chickenhawks send young Americans to their bloody end in desert wars. Yes, the American veterans, who put their lives on the line for the US, are urging POTUS to think carefully over the situation in Syria: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-09-11/intel-veterans-urge-president-trump-step-back-brink-syria , whereas the chickenhawks (the majority of them in the zionists' pockets) and the Israel-firsters cannot wait to see more slaughter in Syria.

An excerpt from the letter by Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity:
"The Israelis, Saudis, and others who want unrest to endure are egging on the insurgents, assuring them that you, Mr. President, will use US forces to protect the insurgents in Idlib, and perhaps also rain hell down on Damascus. We believe that your senior advisers are encouraging the insurgents to think in those terms, and that your most senior aides are taking credit for your recent policy shift from troop withdrawal from Syria to indefinite war."
-- It is obvious that the "senior advisers" and "senior aides" are opportunists and traitors whose children (with their elders) should be sent to Idlib ASAP to get a shot of reality.

Amazing that the Veterans' letter was sent on the 9/11 in protest to the US government support for Al Qaeda.

[Sep 12, 2018] The Moral Conceit of Our Post-9-11 Politics

This is a complete misunderstanding of 911 events: it was a deliberate plot by neocons to convert the USA into a national security state.
Notable quotes:
"... This moral conceit is now the driver of an incredibly destructive and counterproductive foreign policy agenda. ..."
Sep 12, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

In the foreign policy realm, this would all eventually give way to paranoia, compromises of values, and overreactions that drastically changed how America projected itself in global affairs. What was once simply a fatal conceit that the United States could shape the world to its benefit mutated into a moral conceit that privileged counterterrorism measures above all else. This moral conceit is now the driver of an incredibly destructive and counterproductive foreign policy agenda.

[Sep 12, 2018] 9-11 anniversary special! Psychology of 9-11 truth denial -- and our bravest survivor speaks out

[Podcast]
Notable quotes:
"... "There is precedent for this kind of legislation such as the House Select Committee on Assassinations and the Church Committee . For example, Finding 1C of the House Select Committee on Assassinations stated, ' The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. The committee is unable to identify the other gunman or the extent of the conspiracy.' As a result of this truth coming out of an investigation by a select committee many people are aware that such a process is available." ..."
Sep 12, 2018 | www.veteranstoday.com
HERE

First hour: Charles Ewing Smith writes: "I am proud to present the full length version of my Award winning documentary ' The Demolition of Truth -- Psychologists Examine 9/11 ' for free on Youtube."

(Portions of the film were included in Smith's earlier film 9/11 Explosive Evidence-Experts Speak Out with Richard Gage.)

Those interested in the psychology of 9/11 truth denial should also read Fran Shure's multi-part series " Why Do Good People Become Silent -- or Worse -- About 9/11? "

Second hour: 9/11 survivor Bob McIlvaine joins us to discuss the Bobby McIlvaine Act . Named after his son Bobby, who was killed by an explosion in the North Tower before the first plane hit, the bill would establish a new, independent investigation of the crime of the century.

https://www.ae911truth.org/get-involved/bobby-mcilvaine-act

As 9/11 TAP explains:

"There is precedent for this kind of legislation such as the House Select Committee on Assassinations and the Church Committee . For example, Finding 1C of the House Select Committee on Assassinations stated, ' The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. The committee is unable to identify the other gunman or the extent of the conspiracy.' As a result of this truth coming out of an investigation by a select committee many people are aware that such a process is available."

Dbooger September 12, 2018 at 9:20 am
I've been in the engineering and construction business for over 50 years. According to local codes and international building codes, the buildings were designed to take a hit from more than one airplane. It's obvious the buildings were brought down by pre-planted explosive devices. Instead of arguing how they were demolished, go after the who and why and the evil perpetrators controlled by the Zio-Khazar Rothschilds!
Kareem Salessi September 11, 2018 at 12:45 am
Here are a few more 9/11-truther-victims:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suQitX2GmTU Mysterious Deaths of 9 11 Witnesses (MUST SEE)

Rudy Guiliani (Jooliany) made 2,000,000 tons of evidentiary-debris disappear (all the way to China) in record time, with hauling equipment standing by, since the day before 9/11/01 (September 10)!

... ... ...

mb. September 11, 2018 at 1:00 pm
Planes or not something else made the towers turn into dust.

[Sep 12, 2018] Is there any credence to the conspiracy theories about 9/11, in particular about Building 7's collapse when no aircraft hit it?

Notable quotes:
"... Was 9/11 the catalyst that changed our foreign policy makers or the accelerant that made our foreign policy makers double-down? ..."
Sep 12, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

blue peacock , 9 hours ago

Was 9/11 the catalyst that changed our foreign policy makers or the accelerant that made our foreign policy makers double-down? Why have the Saudis whose citizens constituted 15 out of the 19 attackers never been held to account?

Is there any credence to the conspiracy theories about 9/11, in particular about Building 7's collapse when no aircraft hit it?

Michael Regan -> Pat Lang , 4 hours ago
I find that Samit's testimony in the Moussaoui case is informative: https://famous-trials.com/m...

Samit's difficulty in obtaining a search warrant seems inexplicable.

The name of one of the individuals in DC who stymied the multiple and desperate requests out of Minneapolis seems to being evading search algorithms quite nimbly. Whatever the truth may be, the Bush Admin/PNAC was effective in short-circuiting the rational and engaging the emotional (limbic). Classique, n'est pas, mon colonel?

Britam -> Pat Lang , 7 hours ago
Sir;
I will keep my manipulator appendages depressed and suggest that there is a big difference between sponsoring something like 9/11, and sitting idle while credible evidence warns about something coming up. To sponsor some act like 9/11 is treason. To sit by as it happens is something worse, indifference.
Pat Lang Mod -> Britam , 7 hours ago
Nah. Incompetent careerists.
sbnat1ve -> Pat Lang , 7 hours ago
Weren't the careerists raising the alarm and the electives and appointees doing the pooh-poohing?
FarNorthSolitude -> sbnat1ve , 4 hours ago
For more detail on Mr. Lang's comment about suppression of the working level read up on Agent Rowley and how FBI HQ squashed investigation of Zacarias Moussaoui.

http://edition.cnn.com/2002...

Pat Lang Mod -> sbnat1ve , 6 hours ago
More twisted than that. The appointees combined with SESs to suppress the working level because neither the Obama nor the Bush people wanted to hear it. Too disruptive. Pl

[Sep 12, 2018] Those who planned and caused to happen 9/11 clearly were not American patriots. The attack was physically and psychically and politically against the people of the United States, including the American military.

Notable quotes:
"... But ultimately, the tide can turn. The lies take so much energy to maintain; the chutzpah not enlivening but demeaning; the maintenance of the lies so desperately necessary. ..."
"... 9/11 thus presents an ongoing 'Achilles heel', a potentially terminal 'Pyrrhic victory' for the vile scum that pulled off 9/11. The scum's rise to the top enhances its visibility and vulnerability. ..."
Sep 12, 2018 | www.unz.com

Canuck , says: September 10, 2018 at 3:32 pm GMT

Those who planned and caused to happen 9/11 clearly were not American patriots. The attack was physically and psychically and politically against the people of the United States, including the American military.

A large number of key perpetrators and participants were citizens of Israel, or had primary loyalty to Israel.

Neither the FBI nor the CIA nor military intelligence prevented the attack, and after the attack, these agencies did not pursue the guilty. They betrayed their country.

The former 'traditional' US mass media has either almost entirely participated in the cover-up, or refused to tell the truth. They have betrayed their country.

The political system of the United States has remained mute or supported the cover-up. They have betrayed their country.

Other countries have largely remained silently complicit or supported the cover-up. As a direct result of 9/11, Iraq and Libya have suffered terrible destruction and loss of life via wars of aggression, Syria has suffered great harm, and Afghanistan has been attacked and occupied with large loss of life.

9/11 then is a kind of litmus test for vast social pathology and dysfunction: that so many people would fall so easily for the bs; that so few people in positions of influence and power would have sufficient backbone and integrity to speak truth.

But ultimately, the tide can turn. The lies take so much energy to maintain; the chutzpah not enlivening but demeaning; the maintenance of the lies so desperately necessary.

9/11 thus presents an ongoing 'Achilles heel', a potentially terminal 'Pyrrhic victory' for the vile scum that pulled off 9/11. The scum's rise to the top enhances its visibility and vulnerability.

jilles dykstra , says: September 10, 2018 at 5:26 pm GMT
@Patricus The plotters moved explosive charges into he three buildings and there had to be thousands of these weighing a great amount. It was then necessary to install the explosive equipment. No one ever noticed?

Does anyone question that the aircraft actually struck the buildings?

The conspirators had to precisely coordinate the controlled explosions with the moment the jets hit the buildings. Why didn't they just demolish the buildings with explosives then take credit as some Islamic terror group? Why make a plot so complicated? This requires close cooperation between Muslim terrorists and Israelis who are not often best friends.

If Israel engineered all this to get Americans active in the Middle East could anyone call the end results a success? I can't see how Israel's position has improved. The security of the towers was done by a firm owned by a brother of Bush jr.
No problem in installing the explosives.
Precisely coordinate, any terrorist explodes a bom with a mobile phone.
You really think that those who perpetrated Sept 11 were unable to begin a series of explosions, resembling destruction by gravity ?
Alas, they miscalculated.
It went too fast.
The planes, far more propaganda effect than just demolition.
Israel's position not improved ?
Is not Saddam out of the way, and is not Iraq destroyed ?

CanSpeccy , says: Website September 10, 2018 at 5:28 pm GMT

9/11 Was an Israeli Job

Rubbish. It was the job of Ron's NeoCon friends.

Israelis played an important role, not as instigators, but as agents of the US (deep state) Government.

dearieme , says: September 10, 2018 at 5:30 pm GMT
@Vojkan What you say is not consistent with what I see in those videos:

www.google.fr/search?as_q=tower+collapse+9%2F11+video&as_epq=&as_oq=north+south

Not saying that it wasn't a false flag, not saying who did or didn't do it, just saying what I see. The South tower destruction goes from impact to bottom, from top to impact isn't visible due to dust and smoke. The North tower destruction goes from impact to top and from impact to bottom, at least that's what I see in the videos. As I wrote in another comment, that's one heck of an engineering feat if it was planned that way. The WTC 7 seems to fall on its bottom, which, at the difference of the fall of the twin towers, is consistent with all the videos of controlled demolition that can be found around the web. Then, I think the collapse of the twin towers represent enormous mass falling at high speed to the ground, and I tend to think that such mass is not unlikely to shake the ground on which it falls and send a shock wave that can in turn shake the foundations of buildings in the vicinity, for instance WTC 7. In fact, I don't know and neither do truthers. They assume parametres for their calculations that they can't be sure of.
Then again, even if the assumptions about 'how' are false, it doesn't mean that assumptions about 'who' are too, and vice-versa. The thing is only those who did it know and we hardly ever will.
The point is that whoever however did it, the war against Iraq was a crime against peace as the very same Americans co-defined it in the Nuremberg Statute. "the war against Iraq was a crime against peace"

It was worse than a crime, it was a blunder.

Anonymous , [426] Disclaimer says: September 10, 2018 at 5:37 pm GMT
9/11 = Israel + Saudi Arabia + US neocons

A blending of Zionists and oil interests.

Surprise surprise that this is the axis of power in the Middle East that was against Iraq and now Syria and Iran.

Chris Mallory , says: September 10, 2018 at 6:31 pm GMT
@Patricus The plotters moved explosive charges into he three buildings and there had to be thousands of these weighing a great amount. It was then necessary to install the explosive equipment. No one ever noticed?

Does anyone question that the aircraft actually struck the buildings?

The conspirators had to precisely coordinate the controlled explosions with the moment the jets hit the buildings. Why didn't they just demolish the buildings with explosives then take credit as some Islamic terror group? Why make a plot so complicated? This requires close cooperation between Muslim terrorists and Israelis who are not often best friends.

If Israel engineered all this to get Americans active in the Middle East could anyone call the end results a success? I can't see how Israel's position has improved.

I can't see how Israel's position has improved.

The opium poppies are growing again. Iraq is destroyed. Libya was disarmed and destroyed. Syria has been neutralized for the past few years and is still struggling to recover from the US/Saudi/Israeli supported ISIS. The Palestinians and Iran are both targets of American conservatards. Welfare payments to Israel have been increased and a tripwire consisting of a handful of American troops has been placed in Israel.

Israel isn't any better off?

[Sep 11, 2018] HARPER ON THE 17TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE 9-11 ATTACKS

Sep 11, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

The story of September 11, 2001 is still being written. This will remain the case so long as the government keeps hundreds of thousands of pages of documents from the public. A small number of Representatives and Senators conducted a three-year battle to force the declassification (with heavy redactions) of the 28-page chapter from the original Joint Congressional Inquiry report from December 2002 (not to be confused with the later 9/11 Commission Report). That chapter revealed significant Saudi government support to the 9/11 hijackers, extending up to the Ministry of Defense and Aviation and the Saudi Ambassador to the United States at the time, Prince Bandar Bin Sultan. In September 2016, two months after the 28 pages were released to the public after a 14 year gap, both Houses of Congress overrode a President Obama veto to pass the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA), which removed sovereign immunity in cases where agents of a foreign government aided and abetted a terrorist attack on US soil.

In early 2018, a Federal Judge in New York rejected a Saudi motion to be dismissed from a civil law suit by survivors of the 9/11 attacks and family members of the 3,000 people killed. The Judge not only ruled that the Saudis were not exempted under sovereign immunity due to JASTA. He ordered discovery for the plaintiffs against two Saudi government officials who clearly were in direct contact and aided the original two hijackers to arrive in the United States, Al Mihdhar and Al Hazmi.

On August 21, 2018, a bipartisan group of Senators introduced Senate Resolution 610, calling for the declassification of all the remaining investigative files on 9/11. The Senate resolution was the exact wording of a House resolution introduced in the spring by Representatives Walter Jones, Stephen Lynch and Thomas Massie. Those three House members led the fight for the declassification of the 28 pages. The Senators calling for the release of the 9/11 files are formidable: Senate Republican Whip John Cornyn, Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley, Senator Richard Blumenthal (the lead sponsor), Senator Kirstin Gillebrand and Senator Robert Menendez. The House and Senate resolutions called for the "documents to be declassified to the greatest extent possible," because "the survivors, families and the people of the United States deserve answers."

Theories about the 9/11 attacks run in the extreme; however, it is clear from the official investigations that the US intelligence community--particularly the CIA and the FBI--hid evidence before and after the fact and have a great deal of accounting for their horribly poor performance. Robert Mueller, who came in as FBI Director weeks before 9/11, went out of his way to conceal evidence from the Congressional inquiry. He argued for the burying of the 28 pages. Protecting the FBI from embarrassing disclosures took precedent over getting at the truth about the 9/11 attacks. The fruits of that perfidy have carried forward in ways that were clearly not imagined at the time of the 9/11 attacks and the subsequent coverup.

For the past several years, a Federal Judge in Florida has been reviewing 80,000 pages of FBI files that were withheld from Congressional investigators. Those documents showed that a prominent Saudi businessman, with very close ties to the Royal Family, hosted three of the hijackers at his home in a gated community in Sarasota, Florida. Similar files from FBI investigations in Paterson, New Jersey; Herndon, Virginia; and Boston, Massachusetts have never been released, so there continue to be sizeable gaps in what the public knows.

It may take years or even decades before the full story of the 9/11 attacks is unraveled. But it would be a grave disservice to the 3,000 people who died, the survivors, and the families of those killed and injured, to stop the quest now. Each year, the anniversary of 9/11 serves as a reminder.

Posted at 02:42 PM | Permalink

Reblog (0)

https://disqus.com/embed/comments/?base=default&f=sic-semper-tyrannis&t_i=6a00d8341c72e153ef022ad3909874200d&t_u=http%3A%2F%2Fturcopolier.typepad.com%2Fsic_semper_tyrannis%2F2018%2F09%2Fharper-on-the-17th-anniversary-of-the-911-attacks.html&t_d=Sic%20Semper%20Tyrannis%20%3A%20HARPER%3A%20ON%20THE%2017TH%20ANNIVERSARY%20OF%20THE%209%2F11%20ATTACKS&t_t=Sic%20Semper%20Tyrannis%20%3A%20HARPER%3A%20ON%20THE%2017TH%20ANNIVERSARY%20OF%20THE%209%2F11%20ATTACKS&s_o=default#version=e7fe02698bddde52c3bc420198c95fb5

me name=

me name=

[Sep 10, 2018] What was the role of Izrailies in 911?

One problem with this hypothesis is that too many people were involved... And in any case the real conspiracy should reside in Washington and have support of CIA and FBI.
The idea of covering planned demolition with fake terrorist attack is more plausible...
Notable quotes:
"... This "Mossad job" thesis has been gaining ground since Alan Sabrosky, a professor at the U.S. Army War College and the U.S. Military Academy, published in July 2012 an article entitled "Demystifying 9/11: Israel and the Tactics of Mistake" , where he voiced his conviction that September 11 th was "a classic Mossad-orchestrated operation." ..."
"... ...Indeed suspicion of Israel's role should be natural to anyone aware of the reputation of the Mossad as: "Wildcard. Ruthless and cunning. Has capability to target U.S. forces and make it look like a Palestinian/Arab act," in the words of a report of the U.S. Army School for Advanced Military Studies quoted by the Washington Times , September 10 th , 2001 -- the day before the attacks. ..."
Sep 10, 2018 | www.unz.com

Extracted from: 9-11 Was an Israeli Job by Laurent Guyénot

This "Mossad job" thesis has been gaining ground since Alan Sabrosky, a professor at the U.S. Army War College and the U.S. Military Academy, published in July 2012 an article entitled "Demystifying 9/11: Israel and the Tactics of Mistake" , where he voiced his conviction that September 11 th was "a classic Mossad-orchestrated operation."

...Indeed suspicion of Israel's role should be natural to anyone aware of the reputation of the Mossad as: "Wildcard. Ruthless and cunning. Has capability to target U.S. forces and make it look like a Palestinian/Arab act," in the words of a report of the U.S. Army School for Advanced Military Studies quoted by the Washington Times , September 10 th , 2001 -- the day before the attacks.

... ... ...

The dancing Israelis

Researchers who believe Israel orchestrated 9/11 cite the behavior of a group of individuals who have come to be known as the "dancing Israelis" since their arrest, though their aim was to pass as "dancing Arabs." Dressed in ostensibly "Middle Eastern" attire, they were seen by various witnesses standing on the roof of a van parked in Jersey City, cheering and taking photos of each other with the WTC in the background, at the very moment the first plane hit the North Tower. The suspects then moved their van to another parking spot in Jersey City, where other witnesses saw them deliver the same ostentatious celebrations.

One anonymous call to the police in Jersey City, reported the same day by NBC News, mentioned "a white van, 2 or 3 guys in there. They look like Palestinians and going around a building. [ ] I see the guy by Newark Airport mixing some junk and he has those sheikh uniforms. [ ] He's dressed like an Arab." The police soon issued the following BOLO alert (be-on-the-look-out) for a "Vehicle possibly related to New York terrorist attack. White, 2000 Chevrolet van with New Jersey registration with 'Urban Moving Systems' sign on back seen at Liberty State Park, Jersey City, NJ, at the time of first impact of jetliner into World Trade Center. Three individuals with van were seen celebrating after initial impact and subsequent explosion."

By chance, the van was intercepted around 4 pm, with five young men inside: Sivan and Paul Kurzberg, Yaron Shmuel, Oded Ellner, and Omer Marmari. Before any question was asked, the driver, Sivan Kurzberg, burst out: "We are Israelis. We are not your problem. Your problems are our problems. The Palestinians are your problem".The Kurzberg brothers were formally identified as Mossad agents. All five officially worked for a moving company (a classic cover for espionage) named Urban Moving Systems, whose owner, Dominik Otto Suter, fled the country for Tel Aviv on September 14. [4] Christopher Bollyn, Solving 9-11: The Deception That Changed the World, C. Bollyn, 2012, pp. 278–280.

ORDER IT NOW

This event was first reported the day after the attacks by journalist Paulo Lima in the New Jersey newspaper The Bergen Record , based on "sources close to the investigation" who were convinced of the suspects' foreknowledge of the morning's attacks: "It looked like they knew what was going to happen when they were at Liberty State Park".The 579-page FBI report on the investigation that followed (partially declassified in 2005) reveals several important facts. First, once developed, the photos taken by the suspects while watching the North Tower on fire confirm their attitudes of celebration: "They smiled, they hugged each other and they appeared to 'high five' one another". To explain their contentment, the suspects said they were simply happy that, thanks to these terrorist attacks, "the United States will take steps to stop terrorism in the world". Yet at this point, before the second tower was hit, most Americans believed the crash was an accident. The five Israelis were found connected to another company called Classic International Movers, which employed five other Israelis arrested for their contacts with the nineteen presumed suicide hijackers. In addition, one of the five suspects had called "an individual in South America with authentic ties to Islamic militants in the middle east". Finally, the FBI report states that the "The vehicle was also searched by a trained bomb-sniffing dog which yielded a positive result for the presence of explosive traces".

After all this incriminating evidence comes the most puzzling passage of the report: its conclusion that "the FBI no longer has any investigative interests in the detainees and they should proceed with the appropriate immigration proceedings". In fact, a letter addressed to the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, dated September 25, 2001, proves that, less than two weeks after the events, the FBI federal headquarter had already decided to close the investigation, asking that "The U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service should proceed with the appropriate immigration proceedings". The five "dancing Israelis", also known as "the high fivers" , were detained 71 days in a Brooklyn prison, where they first refused, then failed, lie detector tests. Finally, they were quietly returned to Israel under the minimal charge of "visa violation." Three of them were then invited on an Israeli TV talk show in November 2001, where one of them ingenuously declared: "Our purpose was simply to document the event."

... ... ...

On March 14 th , 2002, an article in French newspaper Le Monde signed by Sylvain Cypel also referred to the report, shortly before the French magazine Intelligence Online made it fully accessible on the Internet . [5] It is quoted here from Bollyn's book and from Justin Raimondo, The Terror Enigma: 9/11 and the Israeli Connection , iUniverse, 2003. It said that 140 Israeli spies, aged between 20 and 30, had been arrested since March 2001, while 60 more were arrested after September 11. Generally posing as art students, they visited at least "36 sensitive sites of the Department of Defense." "A majority of those questioned have stated they served in military intelligence, electronic signal intercept, or explosive ordnance units. Some have been linked to high-ranking officials in the Israeli military. One was the son of a two-star general, one served as the bodyguard to the head of the Israeli Army, one served in a Patriot mission unit." Another, Peer Segalovitz, officer in the 605 Battalion of the Golan Heights, "acknowledged he could blow up buildings, bridges, cars, and anything else that he needed to." [6] Christopher Bollyn, Solving 9-11: The Deception That Changed the World, C. Bollyn, 2012, p. 159.

Of special interest is the mention that "the Hollywood, Florida, area seems to be a central point for these individuals." [7] Justin Raimondo, The Terror Enigma: 9/11 and the Israeli Connection , iUniverse, 2003, p. 3. More than 30 out of the 140 fake Israeli students identified before 9/11 lived in that city of 140,000 inhabitants. And this city also happens to be the place where fifteen of the nineteen alleged 9/11 Islamist hijackers had regrouped (nine in Hollywood, six in the vicinity), including four of the five supposed to have hijacked Flight AA11. What was the relationship between the Israeli spies and the Islamist terrorists? We were told by mainstream news that the former were monitoring the latter, but failed to report suspicious activities of these terrorists to American authorities. From such a presentation, Israel comes out clean, since a spy agency cannot be blamed for not sharing information with the country it is spying in. At worst, the Israeli Intelligence can be accused of "letting it happen" -- a guarantee of impunity. In reality, the Israeli agents were certainly not just monitoring the future "hijackers," but financing and manipulating them, before disposing of them. We know that Israeli Hanan Serfaty, who rented two flats near Mohamed Atta, had handled at least $100,000 in three months. And we also learned from the New York Times on February 19, 2009 , that Ali al-Jarrah, cousin of the alleged hijacker of Flight UA93 Ziad al-Jarrah, had spent twenty-five years spying for the Mossad as an undercover agent infiltrating the Palestinian resistance and Hezbollah.

Israeli agents apparently appreciate operating under the cover of artists. Shortly before September 11, a group of fourteen Jewish "artists" under the name of Gelatin installed themselves on the ninety-first floor of the north tower of the World Trade Center. There, as a work of "street art," they removed a window and extended a wooden balcony. To understand what role this piece of scaffolding may have played, it must be remembered that the explosion supposedly resulting from the impact of the Boeing AA11 on the North Tower took place between the ninety-second and the ninety-eighth floors. With the only film of the impact on the North Tower being that of the Naudet brothers, who are under suspicion for numerous reasons, many researchers are convinced that no aircraft hit this tower, and that the explosion simulating the impact was provoked by pre-planted explosives inside the tower.

... ... ...

Another chief of the cover-up was Philip Zelikow, the executive director of the 9/11 presidential Commission established in November 2002. Zelikow is a self-styled specialist in the art of making "public myths" by "'searing' or 'molding' events [that] take on 'transcendent' importance and, therefore, retain their power even as the experiencing generation passes from the scene" ( Wikipedia ). In December 1998, he co-signed an article for Foreign Affairs entitled "Catastrophic Terrorism," in which he speculated on what would have happened if the 1993 WTC bombing (already attributed to bin Laden) had been done with a nuclear bomb: "An act of catastrophic terrorism that killed thousands or tens of thousands of people and/or disrupted the necessities of life for hundreds of thousands, or even millions, would be a watershed event in America's history.

It could involve loss of life and property unprecedented for peacetime and undermine Americans' fundamental sense of security within their own borders in a manner akin to the 1949 Soviet atomic bomb test, or perhaps even worse.

Like Pearl Harbor, the event would divide our past and future into a before and after. The United States might respond with draconian measures scaling back civil liberties, allowing wider surveillance of citizens, detention of suspects and use of deadly force." This is the man who controlled the governmental investigation on the 9/11 terror attacks. Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, who nominally led the commission, revealed in their book Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission (2006), that the commission "was set up to fail" from the beginning.

Zelikow, they claim, had already written a synopsis and a conclusion for the final report before the first meeting. He controlled all the working groups, prevented them from communicating with each other, and gave them as sole mission to prove the official story; Team 1A, for example, was tasked to "tell the story of Al-Qaeda's most successful operation -- the 9/11 attacks."

A tight control of mainstream media is perhaps the most delicate aspect of the whole operation. I will not delve into that aspect, for we all know what to expect from the MSM. For a groundbreaking argument on the extent to which 9/11 was psy-op orchestrated by MSM, I recommend Ace Baker's 2012 documentary 9/11 The Great American Psy-Opera , chapters 6, 7 and 8.

[Sep 10, 2018] Francesco Cossiga, formerly President of Italy, flat-out said that the major governments in Europe all privately recognise that 9-11 was run by the USA Israel

Sep 10, 2018 | www.unz.com

Brabantian , says: Website September 10, 2018 at 8:03 am GMT

Above, Laurent Guyénot mentions the 'Israeli art students' who had been working in the NYC towers a few weeks before the 9-11 event, these 'students' covered by the New York Times, which showed in photos a stack of cardboard boxes alongside the 'art students', the factory code markings on the boxes later traced as referencing components of bomb detonators

Francesco Cossiga, formerly President of Italy, flat-out said that the major governments in Europe all privately recognise that 9-11 was run by the USA & Israel Cossiga speaking to Italy's largest newspaper, the Corriere della Serra:

[Sep 10, 2018] American Pravda 9-11 Conspiracy Theories by Ron Unz

Notable quotes:
"... Hartford Courant ..."
"... . Moreover, a 2014 book by Prof. Graeme MacQueen that I only very recently discovered has made a reasonably persuasive case that the Anthrax killings were intimately connected to the 9/11 attacks themselves, greatly magnifying the malfeasance of our media elites. ..."
"... Economics Nobel Laureate Joseph Stiglitz and others have estimated that with interest the total long-term cost of our two recent wars may reach as high as $5 or $6 trillion, or as much as $50,000 per American household, mostly still unpaid. Meanwhile, economist Edward Wolff has calculated that the Great Recession and its aftermath cut the personal net worth of the median American household to $57,000 in 2010 from a figure nearly twice as high three years earlier. Comparing these assets and liabilities, we see that the American middle class now hovers on the brink of insolvency, with the cost of our foreign wars being a leading cause. ..."
"... Author James Bovard has described our society as an "attention deficit democracy," and the speed with which important events are forgotten once the media loses interest might surprise George Orwell. ..."
"... As President George W. Bush began inexorably moving America toward the Iraq War in 2002, I realized with a terrible sinking feeling that the notoriously pro-Israel Neocon zealots had somehow managed to seize control of the foreign policy of his administration, a situation I could never have imagined even in my worst nightmare ..."
"... Weekly Standard ..."
"... Lenin in Zurich ..."
"... The Terror Enigma ..."
"... 9/11: The Big Lie ..."
"... Popular Mechanics ..."
"... Red Ice Radio ..."
"... Fahrenheit 9/11 ..."
"... Zionism, Militarism, and the Decline of US Power ..."
"... This unfortunate conspiracy of silence finally ended in 2009 when Dr. Alan Sabrosky, former Director of Studies at the US Army War College, stepped forward and publicly declared that the Israeli Mossad had very likely been responsible for the 9/11 attacks, writing a series of columns on the subject, and eventually presenting his views in a number of media interviews, along with additional analyses . ..."
"... Sabrosky focused much attention upon a certain portion of a Dutch documentary film on the 9/11 attacks produced several years earlier. In one fascinating interview, a professional demolition expert named Danny Jowenko who was largely ignorant of the 9/11 attacks immediately identified the filmed collapse of WTC Building 7 as a controlled-demolition, and the remarkable clip was broadcast worldwide on Press TV ..."
"... Guns & Butter ..."
"... The late Alan Hart , a very distinguished British broadcast journalist and foreign correspondent, also broke his silence in 2010 and similarly pointed to the Israelis as the likely culprits in the 9/11 attacks, and those interested may wish to listen to his extended interview . ..."
"... JFK-9/11: 50 Years of the Deep State ..."
"... But oddly enough, without making much effort at all, the American government did quickly round up and arrest some 200 Israeli Mossad agents , many of whom had been based in exactly the same geographical locations as the purported 19 Arab hijackers. Furthermore, NYC police arrested some of these agents publicly celebrating the 9/11 attacks , while others were caught driving vans in the New York area containing explosives or their residual traces. Most of these Mossad agents refused to answer any questions, and many of those who did failed polygraph tests, but under political pressure all were eventually released and deported back to Israel. ..."
"... One month after the 9/11 attacks, an Israeli intelligence officer and a local Jewish activist were caught attempting to sneak weapons and explosives into the Mexican Parliament building, a story that naturally produced several banner-headlines in leading Mexican newspapers at the time but which was totally ignored by the American media. Eventually, under massive political pressure, all charges were dropped and the Israeli agent deported back home. ..."
Sep 10, 2018 | www.unz.com

... ... ...

Although immigration and Hispanic crime were perennial topics in that HBD group, for a few years after the 9/11 attacks the latter issue was almost entirely displaced by feverish exchanges on Muslim terrorism and the accompanying Clash of Civilizations. Once again, I was invariably on the short end of a 99-to-1 divide, with nearly all the others in the group claiming that destruction of the World Trade Center conclusively proved that we needed to close our borders to foreign immigrants. I pointed out that since the Arab hijackers involved hadn't been immigrants, but had generally entered our country on tourist visas, maybe the "War on Terrorism" should be renamed the "War on Tourism," and we should protect America by completely closing our borders to the horrifying risks of the latter. Yet everyone ignored my sage advice.

The 9/11 attacks themselves had astonished me as much as everyone else on the HBD list, but aside from carefully reading the developing story in the New York Times and my other morning newspapers, I was too busy with my work to otherwise follow the topic. At first, everyone seemed certain that there would soon be a wave of follow-up attacks by the dozens or perhaps even hundreds of other Islamic terrorists remaining in our country, but nothing like that ever happened. After a few weeks had gone by without any further explosions, even small ones, I told the other HBD listmembers that I now strongly suspected every last Al Qaeda terrorist in America had probably died in the suicide attacks of September 11th, and there wasn't a single remaining operative left behind to commit further mayhem. Many of the others disagreed with me, but as the months and eventually the years went by, my surprising hypothesis turned out to be correct.

There was one important exception to this pattern, but it actually served to confirm the rule. As I wrote a few years ago in my original "American Pravda" article:

Consider the almost forgotten anthrax mailing attacks in the weeks after 9/11, which terrified our dominant East Coast elites and spurred passage of the unprecedented Patriot Act, thereby eliminating many traditional civil-libertarian protections. Every morning during that period the New York Times and other leading newspapers carried articles describing the mysterious nature of the deadly attacks and the complete bafflement of the FBI investigators. But evenings on the Internet I would read stories by perfectly respectable journalists such as Salon 's Laura Rozen or the staff of the Hartford Courant providing a wealth of additional detail and pointing to a likely suspect and motive.

Although the letters carrying the anthrax were purportedly written by an Arab terrorist, the FBI quickly determined that the language and style indicated a non-Arab author, while tests pointed to the bioweapons research facility at Ft. Detrick, Md., as the probable source of the material. But just prior to the arrival of those deadly mailings, military police at Quantico, Va., had also received an anonymous letter warning that a former Ft. Detrick employee, Egyptian-born Dr. Ayaad Assaad, might be planning to launch a national campaign of bioterrorism. Investigators quickly cleared Dr. Assaad, but the very detailed nature of the accusations revealed inside knowledge of his employment history and the Ft. Detrick facilities. Given the near-simultaneous posting of anthrax envelopes and false bioterrorism accusations, the mailings almost certainly came from the same source, and solving the latter case would be the easiest means of catching the anthrax killer.

Who would have attempted to frame Dr. Assaad for bioterrorism? A few years earlier he had been involved in a bitter personal feud with a couple of his Ft. Detrick coworkers, including charges of racism, official reprimands, and angry recriminations all around. When an FBI official shared a copy of the accusatory letter with a noted language-forensics expert and allowed him to compare the text with the writings of 40 biowarfare lab employees, he found a perfect match with one of those individuals. For years I told my friends that anyone who spent 30 minutes with Google could probably determine the name and motive of the likely anthrax killer, and most of them successfully met my challenge.

This powerful evidence received almost no attention in the major national media, nor is there any indication that the FBI ever followed up on any of these clues or interrogated the named suspects. Instead, investigators attempted to pin the attacks on a Dr. Steven Hatfill based on negligible evidence, after which he was completely exonerated and won a $5.6 million settlement from the government for its years of severe harassment. Later, similar hounding of researcher Bruce Ivins and his family led to his suicide, after which the FBI declared the case closed, even though former colleagues of Dr. Ivins demonstrated that he had had no motive, means, or opportunity. In 2008, I commissioned a major 3,000-word cover story in my magazine summarizing all of this crucial evidence, and once again almost no one in the mainstream media paid the slightest attention.

Unlike the 9/11 attacks themselves, I had closely followed the Anthrax terrorism, and was shocked by the strange silence of the government investigators and our leading newspapers. At the time, I generally assumed that the attacks were totally unconnected with 9/11 and merely opportunistic, but I simply couldn't understand how a few minutes a day of reading Salon and the Hartford Courant on the web could seemingly solve the front-page whodunit that was baffling everyone at the FBI and the New York Times . It was around that point when I started to wonder whether the elite media publications I had always relied upon were merely "Our American Pravda" under a different name . Moreover, a 2014 book by Prof. Graeme MacQueen that I only very recently discovered has made a reasonably persuasive case that the Anthrax killings were intimately connected to the 9/11 attacks themselves, greatly magnifying the malfeasance of our media elites.

In theoretical physics, new scientific breakthroughs often occur when known objects are found to behave in inexplicable ways, thereby suggesting the existence of previously unsuspected forces or particles. In evolutionary biology, when a biological organism appears to be acting against its own genetic interests, we may safely assume that it has probably fallen under the control of a different organism, typically a parasite, which has hijacked the host and is directing its activities toward different ends. While I couldn't be entirely sure what was happening to the politics and media of my own country, something very odd and disturbing was certainly taking place.

Things soon became even much worse. Since the 9/11 attacks had apparently been organized by Osama bin Laden and he was based in Afghanistan under Taliban protection, our attack on that country at least seemed rational. But suddenly there also soon appeared talk of attacking Saddam Hussein's Iraq, which made absolutely no sense whatsoever.

At first I couldn't believe what was taking place, simply awed by the breathtaking power and dishonesty of "our American Pravda," with the establishment media so easily transforming black into white and night into day. Once again, quoting from my original article of that title:

The circumstances surrounding our Iraq War demonstrate this, certainly ranking it among the strangest military conflicts of modern times. The 2001 attacks in America were quickly ascribed to the radical Islamists of al-Qaeda, whose bitterest enemy in the Middle East had always been Saddam Hussein's secular Baathist regime in Iraq. Yet through misleading public statements, false press leaks, and even forged evidence such as the "yellowcake" documents, the Bush administration and its neoconservative allies utilized the compliant American media to persuade our citizens that Iraq's nonexistent WMDs posed a deadly national threat and required elimination by war and invasion. Indeed, for several years national polls showed that a large majority of conservatives and Republicans actually believed that Saddam was the mastermind behind 9/11 and the Iraq War was being fought as retribution. Consider how bizarre the history of the 1940s would seem if America had attacked China in retaliation for Pearl Harbor.

True facts were easily available to anyone paying attention in the years after 2001, but most Americans do not bother and simply draw their understanding of the world from what they are told by the major media, which overwhelmingly -- almost uniformly -- backed the case for war with Iraq; the talking heads on TV created our reality. Prominent journalists across the liberal and conservative spectrum eagerly published the most ridiculous lies and distortions passed on to them by anonymous sources, and stampeded Congress down the path to war.

The result was what my late friend Lt. Gen. Bill Odom rightly called the "greatest strategic disaster in United States history." American forces suffered tens of thousands of needless deaths and injuries, while our country took a huge step toward national bankruptcy. Economics Nobel Laureate Joseph Stiglitz and others have estimated that with interest the total long-term cost of our two recent wars may reach as high as $5 or $6 trillion, or as much as $50,000 per American household, mostly still unpaid. Meanwhile, economist Edward Wolff has calculated that the Great Recession and its aftermath cut the personal net worth of the median American household to $57,000 in 2010 from a figure nearly twice as high three years earlier. Comparing these assets and liabilities, we see that the American middle class now hovers on the brink of insolvency, with the cost of our foreign wars being a leading cause.

But no one involved in the debacle ultimately suffered any serious consequences, and most of the same prominent politicians and highly paid media figures who were responsible remain just as prominent and highly paid today. For most Americans, reality is whatever our media organs tell us, and since these have largely ignored the facts and adverse consequences of our wars in recent years, the American people have similarly forgotten. Recent polls show that only half the public today believes that the Iraq War was a mistake.

Author James Bovard has described our society as an "attention deficit democracy," and the speed with which important events are forgotten once the media loses interest might surprise George Orwell.

As President George W. Bush began inexorably moving America toward the Iraq War in 2002, I realized with a terrible sinking feeling that the notoriously pro-Israel Neocon zealots had somehow managed to seize control of the foreign policy of his administration, a situation I could never have imagined even in my worst nightmare .

Throughout the 1990s and even afterward, I'd been on very friendly terms with the Neocons in NYC and DC, working closely with them on issues relating to immigration and assimilation. Indeed, my December 1999 article "California and the End of White America" had not only appeared as one of the longest cover stories ever published in Commentary , their intellectual flagship, but had even been cited as the centerpiece of its annual fund-raising letter.

I and my other DC friends were well aware of the fanatical views most Neocons held on Israel and Middle Eastern policy. Indeed, their foreign policy obsessions had been a regular staple of our jokes and ridicule, but since it seemed unimaginable that they would ever be given any authority in that sphere, their beliefs had seemed a relatively harmless eccentricity. After all, could anyone possibly imagine fanatical libertarians being placed in total control of the Pentagon, allowing them to immediately disband the American armed forces as a "statist institution"?

Moreover, the complete ideological triumph of the Neocons after the 9/11 attacks was all the more shocking given their recent political missteps. During the 2000 presidential campaign, nearly all of the Neocons had aligned themselves with Sen. John McCain, whose battle with Bush for the Republican nomination had eventually turned quite bitter, and as a consequence, they had been almost totally been frozen out of high-level appointments. Both Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld were then widely regarded as Bush Republicans, lacking any significant Neocon ties, and the same was true for all the other top administration figures such as Colin Powell, Condeleeza Rice, and Paul O'Neil. Indeed, the only Neoconservative figure offered a Cabinet spot was Linda Chavez, and not only was the Labor Department always regarded as something of a boobie prize in a GOP Administration, but she was ultimately forced to withdraw her nomination due to her "nanny problems." The highest-ranking Neocon serving under Bush was Rumsfeld Deputy Paul Wolfowitz, whose seemingly inconsequential appointment had been almost totally ignored by everyone.

ORDER IT NOW

Most of the Neocons themselves certainly seemed to recognize the catastrophic defeat they had suffered in the 2000 election. Back in those days, I was on very friendly terms with Bill Kristol, and when I stopped by his office at the Weekly Standard for a chat in the spring of 2001, he seemed in a remarkably depressed state of mind. I remember that at one point, he took his head in his hands and wondered whether it was time for him to just abandon the political battle, resigning his editorship and taking up a quiet post at a DC thinktank. Yet just eight or ten months later, he and his close allies were on their way to gaining overwhelming influence in our government, an eirie parallel to Alexander Solzhenitsyn's Lenin in Zurich . The totally fortuitous 9/11 attacks and the outbreak of war had suddenly allowed a small but committed ideological faction to seize control of a gigantic country.

A thorough account of the Neocons and their takeover of the Bush Administration in the aftermath of 9/11 is provided by Dr. Stephen J. Sniegoski in his 2008 book The Transparent Cabal, conveniently available on this website:

The Transparent Cabal The Neoconservative Agenda, War in the Middle East, and the National Interest of Israel Stephen J. Sniegoski • 2008 • 178,000 Words

Oddly enough, for many years after 9/11, I paid very little attention to the details of the attacks themselves. I was entirely preoccupied with building my content-archiving software system , and with the little time I could spend on public policy matters, I was totally focused to the ongoing Iraq War disaster, as well as my terrible fears that Bush might at any moment suddenly extend the conflict to Iran. Despite Neocon lies, shamelessly echoed by our corrupt media, neither Iraq nor Iran had had anything whatsoever to do with the 9/11 attacks, so those events gradually faded in my consciousness, and I suspect the same was true for most other Americans. Al Qaeda had largely disappeared, with Bin Laden perhaps hiding in a cave somewhere. Despite endless Homeland Security "threat alerts," there had been absolutely no further Islamic terrorism on American soil, and relatively little anywhere else outside the Iraq charnel house. So the precise details of the 9/11 plots had become almost irrelevant to me.

Others I knew seemed to feel the same way. Virtually all the exchanges I had with my old friend Bill Odom, the three-star general who had run the NSA for Ronald Reagan, had concerned the Iraq War and risk it might spread to Iran, as well as the bitter anger he felt toward Bush's perversion of his beloved NSA into an extra-constitutional tool of domestic espionage. When the New York Times broke the story of the massive extent of domestic NSA spying, Gen. Odom declared that President Bush should be impeached and NSA Director Michael Hayden court-martialed. But in all the years prior to his untimely passing in 2008 , I don't recall the 9/11 attacks themselves even once coming up as a topic in our discussions.

During those same years, I'd also grown quite friendly with Alexander Cockburn , whose Counterpunch webzine seemed a very rare center of significant opposition to our disastrous foreign policy towards Iraq and Iran. I do recall that he once complained to me in 2006 about the "conspiracy nuts" of the 9/11 Truth movement who were endlessly harassing his publication, and I extended my sympathies. Each of us move in different political circles, and that brief reference may have been the first and only time I heard of the 9/11 Truthers during that period, causing me to regard them more like an eccentric UFO cult than anything else.

Admittedly, I'd occasionally heard of some considerable oddities regarding the 9/11 attacks here and there, and these certainly raised some suspicions. Most days I would glance at the Antiwar.com front page, and it seemed that some Israeli Mossad agents had been caught while filming that plane attacks in NYC, while a much larger Mossad "art student" spy operation around the country had also been broken up around the same time. Apparently, FoxNews had even broadcast a multi-part series on the latter subject before that expose was scuttled and "disappeared" under ADL pressure.

ORDER IT NOW

But I wasn't sure about the credibility of those claims, though it did seem plausible that Mossad had known of the attacks in advance and allowed them to proceed, recognizing the huge benefits that Israel would derive from the anti-Arab backlash. I think I was vaguely aware that Antiwar.com editorial director Justin Raimondo had published The Terror Enigma , a very short book about some of these strange facts, bearing the provocative subtitle "9/11 and the Israeli Connection," but I never considered reading it. In 2007, Counterpunch itself published a fascinating follow-up story about that arrest of that group of Israeli Mossad agents in NYC, who were caught filming and apparently celebrating the plane attacks on that fateful day, which turned out to be a much broader operation than I had previously realized. But all these details remained a little fuzzy in my mind next to my overriding concerns about wars in Iraq and Iran.

However

Moreover, around that same time I'd stumbled across an astonishing detail of the 9/11 attacks that demonstrated the remarkable depths of my own ignorance. In a Counterpunch article, I'd discovered that immediately following the attacks, their supposed terrorist mastermind

, even declaring that no good Muslim would have committed such a deed.

Once I checked around a little and fully confirmed that fact , I was flabbergasted. 9/11 was not only the most successful terrorist attack in the history of the world, but may have been greater in its physical magnitude than all such previous terrorist operations combined. The entire purpose of terrorism is to allow a small organization to show the world that it can inflict serious losses upon a powerful state, and I had never previously heard of any terrorist leader denying his role in a successful operation, let alone the greatest in history. Something seemed extremely wrong in the media-generated narrative that I had previously accepted. I began to wonder if I had been as deluded as the tens of millions of Americans in 2003 and 2004 who naively believed that Saddam had been the mastermind behind the September 11th attacks. We live in a world of illusions generated by our media, and I suddenly felt that I had noticed a tear in the paper-mache mountains displayed in the background of a Hollywood sound-stage. If Osama was probably not the author of 9/11, what other huge falsehoods had I blindly accepted?

A couple of years later, I came across a very interesting column by Eric Margolis, a prominent Canadian foreign policy journalist purged from the broadcast media for his strong opposition to the Iraq War. He had long published a weekly column in the Toronto Sun and when that tenure ended, he used his closing appearance to run a double-length piece expressing his very strong doubts about the official 9/11 story .

ORDER IT NOW

In addition, an old friend of mine with strong connections to elite French circles at some point shared what he regarded as an amusing anecdote. He mentioned that at a private dinner party in Paris attended by influential political and media figures, France's former Defense Minister had told the other disbelieving guests that the Pentagon had been struck by a missile rather than a civilian jetliner. My friend explained that the minister in question was widely regarded as extremely intelligent and level-headed, thereby proving that even the most highly reputable individuals may sometimes believe in utterly crazy things.

But I interpreted those same facts very differently. France probably possessed one of the four or five best intelligence service in the world, and surely a French Defense Minister would be privy to better information about true events than a typical media pundit. In fact, one of the earliest books sharply questioning the official 9/11 narrative was 9/11: The Big Lie by French journalist Thierry Meyssan, which appeared in 2002 and similarly argued that the Pentagon had been struck by a missile, perhaps suggesting that it may have been partly influenced by leaks coming from French Intelligence.

I eventually shared that account of the French minister's private opinions with a very well-connected American individual, someone in our elite Establishment with whom I'd become a little friendly. His reaction made it clear that he held the same highly unorthodox views about the 9/11 attacks, although he had never publicly voiced them lest he risk losing his elite Establishment membership card.

Over the years, all these discordant claims had gradually raised my suspicions about the official 9/11 story to extremely strong levels, but it was only very recently that I finally found the time to begin to seriously investigate the subject and read eight or ten of the main 9/11 Truther books, mostly those by Prof. David Ray Griffin, the widely acknowledged leader in that field. And his books, together with the writings of his numerous colleagues and allies, revealed all sorts of very telling details, most of which had previously remained unknown to me. I was also greatly impressed by the sheer number of seemingly reputable individuals of no apparent ideological bent who had become adherents of the 911 Truth movement over the years.

ORDER IT NOW

I certainly attempted to locate contrary books supporting the official 9/11 story, but the only one widely discussed was a rather short volume published by Popular Mechanics magazine, whose lead researcher turned out to be the cousin of Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff. None of the writers appeared to have any serious academic credentials, and they seemed to generally ignore or deflect some of the strongest pieces of evidence provided by the numerous scholars and experts involved in the 9/11 Truth movement. Hence, I hardly found their analysis persuasive, and half-wondered whether Homeland Security had quietly arranged the publication, which might help explain the extremely odd nepotistic coincidence. Popular magazines simply do not carry the scientific weight of research professors at major universities. Perhaps the holes in the official 9/11 narrative were so numerous and large that no serious scholar could be found to defend it.

ORDER IT NOW

When utterly astonishing claims of an extremely controversial nature are made over a period of many years by numerous seemingly reputable academics and other experts, and they are entirely ignored or suppressed but never effectively refuted, reasonable conclusions seem to point in an obvious direction. Based on my very recent readings in this topic, the total number of separate near-fatal anomalies in the official 9/11 story has now grown enormously long, probably numbering in the many dozens. Most of these individual items seem reasonably likely and if we decide that even just two or three of them are correct, we must totally reject the narrative that so many of us have believed for so long. The numerous Griffin books, beginning with his important 2004 volume had spent 29 years at the CIA , rising to become of its senior figures as Director of its Office of Regional and Political Analysis, with 200 research analysts serving under him. In August 2006, he published a remarkable 2,700 word article explaining why he no longer believed the official 9/11 story and felt sure that the 9/11 Commission Report constituted a cover-up, with the truth being quite different. The following year, he provided a forceful endorsement to many other highly-regarded former US intelligence officers .

We might expect that if a former intelligence officer of Christison's rank were to denounce the official 9/11 report as a fraud and a cover-up, such a story would constitute front-page news. But it was never reported anywhere in our mainstream media, and I only stumbled upon it nearly a decade later.

Even nearly all of our supposed "alternative" media outlets were nearly as silent. Throughout the 2000s, Christison and his wife Kathleen, also a former CIA analyst, had been regular contributors to Counterpunch , publishing many dozens of articles there and certainly were its most highly-credentialed writers on intelligence and national security matters. But editor Alexander Cockburn refused to publish any of their 9/11 skepticism, so it never came to my attention at the time. Indeed, when I mentioned Christison's views to current Counterpunch editor Jeffrey St. Clair a couple of years ago, he was stunned to discover that the friend he had regarded so very highly had actually become a "9/11 Truther." When media organs serve as ideological gatekeepers, widespread ignorance becomes unavoidable.

For those so interested, Christison's 2006 article mentioned the strong evidence he found in a C-Span broadcast of a two-hour panel discussion on the September 11th terrorist attacks , and especially cited the documentary Loose Change as an excellent summary of many of the flaws in the official 9/11 case. The full "Final Cut" version of that film is conveniently available on YouTube:

With so many gaping holes in the official story of the events seventeen years ago, each of us is free to choose to focus on those we personally consider most extreme and obvious. Danish Chemistry professor Niels Harrit was one of the scientists who analyzed the debris of the destroyed buildings and detected the residual presence of nano-thermite, a military-grade explosive compound, and I found him quite credible during his hour long interview on Red Ice Radio . The notion that an undamaged hijacker passport was found in an NYC street after the massive, fiery destruction of the skyscrapers is totally absurd, as was the highly incriminating contents of the hijacker luggage recovered in a lost airline bag. And the testimonies of the dozens of firefighters who heard explosions just before the collapse of the buildings seems totally inexplicable under the official story. The sudden total collapse of Building Seven, never hit by any jetliners is also extremely implausible.

Let us now suppose that the overwhelming weight of evidence is correct, and concur with high-ranking former CIA intelligence analysts, distinguished academics, and experienced professionals that the 9/11 attacks were not what they appeared to be. We recognize the extreme implausibility that three huge skyscrapers in New York City suddenly collapsed at free-fall velocity into their own footprints after just two of them were hit by airplanes, and also that a large civilian jetliner probably did not strike the Pentagon leaving absolutely no wreckage and only a small hole. What actually did happen, and more importantly, who was behind it?

The first question is obviously impossible to answer without an honest and thorough official investigation of the evidence. In the absence of that, numerous, somewhat conflicting hypotheses have been advanced and debated within the confines of the 9/11 Truth community. But the second question is probably the more important and relevant one, and I think it has always represented a source of extreme vulnerability to 9/11 Truthers.

The most typical approach, as generally followed in the numerous Griffin books, is to avoid the issue entirely and focus solely on the gaping flaws in the official narrative. This is a perfectly acceptable position but leaves all sorts of serious doubts. What organized group would have been sufficiently powerful and daring to carry off an attack of such vast scale against the central heart of the world's sole superpower? And how were they then able to orchestrate such a massively effective media and political cover-up, even enlisting the participation of the American government itself?

The much smaller slice of 9/11 Truthers who choose to address this "whodunit" question seem to be overwhelmingly concentrated among rank-and-file grassroots activists rather than the prestigious experts, and they usually answer "inside job!" Their widespread belief seems to be that the top political leadership of the Bush Administration, probably including Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, had organized the terrorist attacks, either with or without the knowledge of their nominal but ignorant superior, President George W. Bush. The suggested motives included justification for military attacks against various countries, supporting the financial interests of the powerful oil industry and military-industrial complex, and enabling the destruction of traditional American civil liberties. Since the vast majority of politically-active Truthers seem to come from the far left of the ideological spectrum, these sorts of notions seem logical and almost self-evident.

Although not explicitly endorsing those Truther conspiracies, filmmaker Michael Moore's leftist box office hit Fahrenheit 9/11 seemed to raise such similar suspicions. His small budget documentary earned an astonishing $220 million by suggesting that the very close business ties between the Bush family, Cheney, the oil companies, and the Saudis were responsible for the Iraq War aftermath of the terrorist attacks, with the domestic crackdown on civil liberties being part-and-parcel of the right-wing Republican agenda.

ORDER IT NOW

Unfortunately, this apparently plausible picture seems to have almost no basis in reality. During the drive to the Iraq War, I read Times articles interviewing numerous top oil men in Texas who expressed total puzzlement at why America was planning the attack, saying that they could only assume that President Bush knew something that they themselves did not. Saudi Arabian leaders were adamantly opposed to an American attack on Iraq, and made every effort to prevent it. Prior to his joining the Bush Administration, Cheney had served as CEO of Halliburton, an oil services giant, and his firm had heavily lobbied for the lifting of U.S. economic sanctions against Iraq. Prof. James Petras, a scholar of strong Marxist leanings, published an excellent 2008 book entitled Zionism, Militarism, and the Decline of US Power in which he conclusively demonstrated that Zionist interests rather than those of the oil industry had dominated the Bush Administration in the wake of the 9/11 attacks.

As for Michael Moore's film, I remember at the time sharing a laugh with a (Jewish) friend of mine, both of us finding it ridiculous that a government so overwhelmingly permeated by fanatically pro-Israel Neocons was being portrayed as in thrall to the Saudis. Not only did the plot of Moore's film indicate the fearsome power of Jewish Hollywood, but its huge success demonstrated that most of the American public had apparently never heard of the Neocons.

Bush critics properly ridiculed the president for his tongue-tied statement that the 9/11 terrorists had attacked America "for its freedoms" and Truthers have reasonably branded as implausible the claims that the massive attacks were organized by a cave-dwelling Islamic preacher. But the suggestion that that they were led and organized by the top figures of the Bush Administration seems even more preposterous.

Cheney and Rumsfeld had both spent decades as stalwarts of the moderate pro-business wing of the Republican Party, each serving in top government positions and also CEOs of major corporations. The notion that they capped their careers by joining a new Republican administration in early 2001 and immediately began organizing a gigantic false-flag terrorist attack upon the proudest towers of our largest city together with our own national military headquarters, hoping to kill many thousands of Americans in the process, is too ridiculous to even be part of a leftist political satire.

Let's step back a bit. In the entire history of the world, I can think of no documented case in which the top political leadership of a country launched a major false-flag attack upon its own centers of power and finance and tried to kill large numbers of its own people. The America of 2001 was a peaceful and prosperous country run by relatively bland political leaders focused upon the traditional Republican goals of enacting tax-cuts for the rich and reducing environmental regulations. Too many Truther activists have apparently drawn their understanding of the world from the caricatures of leftist comic-books in which corporate Republicans are all diabolical Dr. Evils, seeking to kill Americans out of sheer malevolence, and Cockburn was absolutely correct to ridicule them at least on that particular score.

Consider also the simple practicalities of the situation. The gigantic nature of the 9/11 attacks as postulated by the Truth movement would have clearly required enormous planning and probably involved the work of many dozens or even hundreds of skilled agents. Directing CIA operatives or special military units to organize secret attacks against civilian targets in Venezuela or Yemen is one thing, but ordering them to mount attacks against the Pentagon and the heart of New York City would be fraught with stupendous risk.

Bush had lost the popular vote in November 2000 and had only reached the White House because of a few dangling chads in Florida and the controversial decision of a deeply divided Supreme Court, so most of the American media regarded his new administration with considerable hostility for those reasons. If the first act of such a newly-sworn presidential team had been directing the CIA or the military to prepare attacks against New York City and the Pentagon, surely those orders would have been regarded as issued by a group of lunatics, and immediately leaked to the hostile national press.

The whole scenario of top American leaders being the masterminds behind 9/11 is beyond ridiculous, and those 9/11 Truthers who make or imply such claims -- doing so without a single shred of solid evidence -- have unfortunately played a major role in discrediting their entire movement. In fact, the common meaning of the "inside job" scenario is so patently absurd and self-defeating that one might even suspect that the claim was encouraged by those seeking to discredit the entire 9/11 Truth movement as a consequence.

On the other hand, it does seem entirely plausible that Cheney, Rumsfeld, and other top Bush leaders may have been manipulated into taking certain actions that inadvertently furthered the 9/11 plot, while a few lower-level Bush appointees might have been more directly involved, perhaps even as outright conspirators. But that is not the normal meaning of the "inside job" accusation.

So where do we now stand? It seems very likely that the 9/11 attacks were the work of an organization far more powerful and professionally-skilled than a rag-tag band of nineteen random Arabs armed with box-cutters, but also the attacks were clearly not the work of the American government itself. So who actually attacked our country on that fateful day seventeen years ago, killing thousands of our fellow citizens?

Effective intelligence operations are concealed in a hall of mirrors, often extremely difficult for outsiders to discern, and false-flag terrorist attacks certainly fall into this category. But applying a different metaphor, the complexities of such events may be seen as a Gordian Knot, almost impossible to disentangle, but which may sometimes easily be cut by asking the simple question "Who benefited?"

America and most of the world certainly did not, and the disastrous legacy of that fateful day have transformed our own society and much of the entire world. The endless American wars soon unleashed have already cost us many trillions of dollars and set our nation on the road to bankruptcy, while killing or displacing many millions of innocent Middle Easterners. Most recently, that flood of desperate refugees has begun engulfing Europe, and the peace and prosperity of that ancient continent is now under severe threat.

Our traditional civil liberties and constitutional protections have been drastically eroded, and our society placed on the road to becoming an outright police state, with American citizens now passively accepting unimaginable infringements on their personal freedoms, all originally begun under the guise of preventing terrorism.

I find it difficult to think of any country in the world that clearly gained as a result of the 9/11 attacks and America's military reaction, with one single, solitary exception.

During 2000 and most of 2001, America was a peaceful prosperous country, but a certain small Middle Eastern nation had found itself in an increasingly desperate situation. Israel then seemed to be fighting for its life against the massive waves of domestic terrorism that constituted much of the Second Intifada.

According to many analysts, Ariel Sharon had deliberately provoked that Palestinian uprising in September 2000 by marching to the Temple Mount backed by a thousand armed police, and the resulting violence and polarization of Israeli society had successfully installed him as Prime Minister in early 2001. But once in office, his notoriously harsh measures failed to prevent a wave of continuing attacks, increasingly made by from suicide-bombers, and there was a widespread opinion that the violence would soon trigger a huge outflow of Israeli citizens, perhaps producing a death-spiral for the Jewish state. Iraq, Iran, Libya, and other major Muslim powers were supporting the Palestinians with money, rhetoric, and sometimes even weapons, and it appeared that Israeli society was beginning to crumble. I remember hearing from some of my DC friends that numerous Israeli policy experts were suddenly seeking berths at Neocon thinktanks so that they could relocate to America.

Sharon was a notoriously bloody and reckless leader, with a long history of being willing to undertake strategic gambles of astonishing boldness, sometimes betting everything on a single roll of the dice. He had spent decades seeking the Prime Ministership, and having finally obtained it, he now had his back to the wall, with no obvious source of rescue in sight.

The 9/11 attacks changed everything. Suddenly the world's sole superpower was fully mobilized against Arab and Muslim terrorist movements, especially those connected with the Middle East. Sharon's close Neocon political allies in America used the unexpected crisis as an opportunity to seize control of America's foreign policy and national security apparatus, with an NSA staffer later reporting that Israeli generals freely roamed the halls of the Pentagon without any security controls. Meanwhile, the excuse of preventing domestic terrorism was used to implement newly centralized American police controls that were employed to harass or even shut down various anti-Zionist political organizations. One of the Israeli Mossad agents arrested by the police in New York City as he and his fellows were celebrating the 9/11 attacks and producing a souvenir film of the burning World Trade Center towers told the officers that "Terrorism is now America's problem." And so it immediately became.

General Wesley Clark reported that soon after the 9/11 attacks he was informed that a secret military plan had somehow come into being under which America would attack and destroy seven major Muslim countries over the next few years, including Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Libya, which coincidentally were all of Israel's strongest regional adversaries and the leading supporters of the Palestinians. As America began to expend enormous oceans of blood and treasure attacking all of Israel's enemies after 9/11, Israel itself no longer had as much need to do so, and partly as a consequence, almost no other nation in the world has so enormously improved its strategic and economic situation during the last seventeen years, even while a large fraction of the American population has become completely impoverished during that same period and our country burdened with an insurmountable national debt. A parasite can often grow fat even as its host suffers and declines.

As I have emphasized, for many years after the 9/11 attacks I paid little attention to its details and had only the vaguest notion that there existed an organized 9/11 Truth movement. But if someone had ever told me that the terrorist attacks had been false-flag events and someone other than Osama had been responsible, my immediate guess would have been Israel and its Mossad.

Certainly no other nation in the world can remotely match Israel's track-record of remarkably bold high-level assassinations and false-flag attacks, terrorist and otherwise, against other countries, certainly including America and its military. Furthermore, the enormous dominance of Jewish and pro-Israel elements in the American establishment media and increasingly that of many other major countries in the West has long ensured that even when the solid evidence of such attacks were discovered, very few ordinary Americans would ever hear of them.

The pattern of behavior is really quite remarkable. During the 1940s, even prior to the establishment of the State of Israel, the various Zionist factions assassinated Lord Moyne, the British Minister for the Middle East and Count Folke Bernadotte, the UN Peace Negotiator, and made unsuccessful attempts to kill President Harry S. Truman and British Foreign Minister Ernest Bevin , while even discussing the possible assassination of Prime Minister Winston Churchill . There seems considerable evidence that the Israeli Mossad subsequently played a central role in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy because of the enormous pressure he was applying to persuade Israel to abandon its nuclear weapons plans. Mossad defector Victor Ostrovsky warned the American government that Israel was planning to assassinate President George H.W. Bush in the early 1990s due to the bitter conflict over financial aid, and apparently those warnings were taken seriously . As recently as 2012, the editor of the main Jewish newspaper in Atlanta publicly called for the assassination of President Barack Obam a over his policy differences with Israel.

The history of military and terrorist attacks is even more striking. One of history's largest terrorist attacks prior to 9/11 was the 1946 bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem by Zionist militants dressed as Arabs, which killed 91 people and largely destroyed the structure. In the famous Lavon Affair of 1954 , Israeli agents launched a wave of terrorist attacks against Western targets in Egypt, intending to have them blamed on anti-Western Arab groups. In 1950, there are strong claims that Israeli Mossad agents launched a wave of false-flag terrorist bombings against Jewish targets in Baghdad, successfully using those violent methods to help persuade Iraq's large thousand-year Jewish community to emigrate to the Jewish state. In 1967, Israel launched a deliberate air and sea attack against the U.S.S. Liberty , intending to leave no survivors, and ultimately killing or wounding over 200 American servicemen before word of the attack got out and it was called off.

The enormous extent of pro-Israel influence in world political and media circles meant that none of these brutal attacks ever drew serious retaliation, and in nearly all cases, they were quickly thrown down the memory hole, so that today probably no more than one in a hundred Americans is aware of them. Most of these secret attacks against American and other Western targets came to light due to chance circumstances, so we may easily suspect that many other attacks of a similar nature have never become part of the historical record.

Once we accept that the 9/11 attacks were probably a false-flag operation, an absolutely central clue to the likely perpetrators has been their extraordinary success in ensuring that such a gigantic wealth of enormously suspicious evidence has been totally ignored by virtually the entire American media, whether liberal or conservative, left-wing or right-wing.

The only other such extreme cases that come to my mind almost invariably involve either Jewish issues or Israel. For example, virtually no Americans are today aware of the close Nazi-Zionist economic partnership of the 1930s that was a crucial factor in the creation of the State of Israel. Similarly, although our Western media has enshrined it as one of the central events of the twentieth century, there seems a good likelihood that the Jewish Holocaust of the Second World War is either substantially or almost entirely fraudulent . Even highly successful false-flag terrorist operations will tend to leave behind many individual clues, and possessing the media power to cause this evidence to vanish from perceived reality is an extraordinarily useful tool for such situations.

Meanwhile, in the particular case at hand, the considerable number of zealously pro-Israel Neocons situated just beneath the public surface of the Bush Administration in 2001 would have greatly facilitated both the successful organization of the attacks and their effective cover-up and concealment, with Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Scooter Libby, and Richard Perle merely among the most obvious names. Whether such individuals were knowing conspirators or merely had personal ties allowing them to be persuaded to take steps furthering the plot is entirely unclear.

Most of this information must surely be obvious within knowledgeable circles, and I strongly suspect that many individuals who had paid much greater attention than myself to the details of the 9/11 attacks may have quickly formed a tentative conclusion along these same times. But for obvious social and political reasons, there is an enormous reluctance to publicly point the finger of blame towards Israel on a matter of such enormous magnitude, so except for a few fringe activists here and there, they kept their suspicions to themselves and simply remained silent.

Meanwhile, the leaders of the 9/11 Truth movement probably feared they would be destroyed by media accusations of deranged anti-Semitism if they did expressed a whisper of such suspicions. This political strategy may have been necessary, but by failing to name any plausible culprit, they created a vacuum that was soon filled by "useful idiots" of the "inside job" persuasion, who pointed an accusing finger at Cheney and Rumfeld, and thereby did so much to discredit the entire 9/11 Truth movement.

This unfortunate conspiracy of silence finally ended in 2009 when Dr. Alan Sabrosky, former Director of Studies at the US Army War College, stepped forward and publicly declared that the Israeli Mossad had very likely been responsible for the 9/11 attacks, writing a series of columns on the subject, and eventually presenting his views in a number of media interviews, along with additional analyses .

Obviously, such explosive charges never reached the pages of my morning Times , but they did receive considerable transitory coverage in elements of the alternative media, and I remember seeing the links very prominently featured at Antiwar.com and widely discussed elsewhere. I had never previously heard of Sabrosky, so I consulted my archiving system and immediately discovered that he had a perfectly respectable record of publication on military affairs in mainstream foreign policy periodicals and had also held a series of academic appointments at prestigious institutions. Reading one or two of his articles on 9/11, I felt he made a rather persuasive case for Mossad involvement, with some of his information already known to me but much of it not.

Since I was very busy with my software work and had never spent any time investigating 9/11 or reading any of the books on the topic, my belief in his claims back then was obviously quite tentative. But now that I have finally looked into the topic in much greater detail and done a great deal of reading, I think it seems quite likely that his 2009 analysis was entirely correct.

I would particularly recommend his long 2011 interview on Iranian Press TV, which I first watched just a couple of days ago. He came across as highly credible and forthright in his claims: Here's a highly controversial clip from a much longer radio interview he did in 2010:

Sabrosky focused much attention upon a certain portion of a Dutch documentary film on the 9/11 attacks produced several years earlier. In one fascinating interview, a professional demolition expert named Danny Jowenko who was largely ignorant of the 9/11 attacks immediately identified the filmed collapse of WTC Building 7 as a controlled-demolition, and the remarkable clip was broadcast worldwide on Press TV and widely discussed on the Internet.

And by a very strange coincidence, just three days after Jowenko's broadcast video interview had received such heavy attention, he had the misfortune to die in a frontal collision with a tree in Holland . I'd suspect that the community of professional demolition experts is a small one, and Jowenko's surviving industry colleagues may have quickly concluded that bad luck might come to those who rendered controversial future opinions on the collapse of the three World Trade Center towers.

Meanwhile, the ADL soon mounted a huge and largely successful effort to have Press TV banned in the West for promoting "anti-Semitic conspiracy theories," even persuading YouTube to entirely eliminate its huge video archive of its past shows.

Most recently, Dr. Sabrosky provided an hour-long presentation at this June's Deep Truth video panel conference , during which he expressed considerable pessimism about America's political predicament, and suggested that the Zionist control over our politics and media had grown even stronger over the last decade.

His discussion was soon rebroadcast by Guns & Butter , a prominent progressive radio program, which as a consequence was soon purged from its home station after seventeen years of great national popularity and strong listener support.

The late Alan Hart , a very distinguished British broadcast journalist and foreign correspondent, also broke his silence in 2010 and similarly pointed to the Israelis as the likely culprits in the 9/11 attacks, and those interested may wish to listen to his extended interview .

One of the first writers to explore this topic was journalist Christopher Bollyn, and the details contained in his long series of newspaper articles are often quoted by other researchers. In 2012, he gathered together this material and published it in the form of a book entitled Solving 9-11 , thereby making his information on the possible role of the Israeli Mossad in the attacks available to a wider audience. However, his volume severely suffers from the typical lack of resources available to the writers on the political fringe, with very poor organization and frequent repetition of the same points due to its origins in a set of individual articles. So those who purchase it should be forewarned about these severe stylistic weaknesses.

Probably a much better compendium of the very extensive evidence pointing to the probable Israeli hand behind the 9/11 attacks has been more recently provided by French journalist Laurent Guyénot, both in his 2017 book JFK-9/11: 50 Years of the Deep State and also his 8,500 word article "9/11 was an Israeli Job" that is being published as a companion piece to this one. His background in 9/11 Truth issues vastly exceeds my own very limited investigation of the subject and he provides a far greater wealth of detail than I could possibly include in this simple summary. While I wouldn't necessarily agree with all his claims and analysis, the overall account is certainly consistent with my own.

I think I might as well add a couple of nuggets of my own in support of the Israeli Mossad Hypothesis.

We would normally expect that terrorist attacks resulting in the complete destruction of three gigantic office buildings in New York City and an aerial assault on the Pentagon would be an operation of enormous size and scale, involving very considerable organizational infrastructure and manpower. Yet in the aftermath of the attacks, the US government undertook great efforts to locate and arrest the surviving Islamic conspirators, but scarcely managed to find a single one. Apparently, they had all died in the attacks themselves or otherwise simply vanished into thin air.

But oddly enough, without making much effort at all, the American government did quickly round up and arrest some 200 Israeli Mossad agents , many of whom had been based in exactly the same geographical locations as the purported 19 Arab hijackers. Furthermore, NYC police arrested some of these agents publicly celebrating the 9/11 attacks , while others were caught driving vans in the New York area containing explosives or their residual traces. Most of these Mossad agents refused to answer any questions, and many of those who did failed polygraph tests, but under political pressure all were eventually released and deported back to Israel.

There is also another fascinating tidbit that I have very rarely seen mentioned. One month after the 9/11 attacks, an Israeli intelligence officer and a local Jewish activist were caught attempting to sneak weapons and explosives into the Mexican Parliament building, a story that naturally produced several banner-headlines in leading Mexican newspapers at the time but which was totally ignored by the American media. Eventually, under massive political pressure, all charges were dropped and the Israeli agent deported back home. I remember first encountering this extremely suspicious incident in the early 2000s on an fringe Hispanic-activist website , and the scanned front pages of the Mexican newspapers reporting the dramatic events were once available elsewhere on the Internet, but after all these years I can no longer easily locate them. The details of this incident are obviously rather fragmentary and perhaps garbled, but certainly quite intriguing.

One might speculate that if Islamic terrorists had followed up their 9/11 attacks by also destroying the Mexican parliament building a month later, Latin American support for America's military invasions in the Middle East would have been enormously greater. Furthermore, any scenes of such massive destruction in the Mexican capital by Arab terrorists would surely have been broadcast non-stop on Univision, America's dominant Spanish-language network, fully solidifying Hispanic support for President Bush's military endeavors.

I doubt that I've spent more than just a few weeks of my total time reading and researching that complex topic, most of that only very recently. I am sure that numerous readers far more knowledgeable than myself will notice various serious errors in my discussion and generously assist in correcting those. Furthermore, my preparation of this analysis was unfortunately cut short by the approach of an particular anniversary date, so that under different circumstances my presentation would have been far more complete and more polished. But I felt there would be some benefits in making this material immediately available to others, even though many might already be familiar with most or all of this information.

Readers should therefore regard this as a preliminary version of my article, which I may render into a more polished form within the next couple of days, a practice that I have never previously followed.

Related Reading:

9/11 was an Israeli Job by Laurent Guyénot 9/11 Contradictions by David Ray Griffin

American Pravda: The JFK Assassination, Part II -- Who Did It?

American Pravda: Holocaust Denial Our American Pravda

[Sep 09, 2018] 9-11 Suspects Philip Zelikow The Corbett Report

Notable quotes:
"... Foreign Affairs ..."
Sep 09, 2018 | www.corbettreport.com

Zelikow denied interviews and documents to staffers investigating the Saudi connection to the attacks, eventually firing one of them and removing the text of their investigation from the final report. He personally rewrote a commission staff statement to suggest a systematic link between Al Qaeda and Iraq before 9/11, outraging the authors of the original statement. He worked behind his own staffer's back to stop them from serving the Pentagon a subpoena to answer about information NORAD was withholding from the commission. He sat on a proposal to open a criminal investigation into FAA and military officials who lied to the commission for months, and then forwarded that proposal not to the Justice Department, who could have brought criminal charges, but to the Inspector General, who could not. And he covered up information on Able Danger, a military intelligence team that had identified several of the alleged 9/11 hijackers in the country before 9/11.

... ... ...

But perhaps more remarkable than the fact that "the fix was in" from the moment he took over the commission and began working on the predictive outline of the final report, is that he had in fact written about 9/11 and its eventual aftermath in 1998, three years before September 11th.

In an article entitled " Catastrophic Terrorism: Tackling the New Danger ," written for the Council on Foreign Relations' Foreign Affairs in November 1998, Zelikow and co-authors Ashton Carter and John Deutsche ask readers to imagine a catastrophic act of terrorism like the destruction of the World Trade Center. "Like Pearl Harbor, the event would divide our past and future into a before and after. The United States might respond with draconian measures scaling back civil liberties, allowing wider surveillance of citizens, detention of suspects and use of deadly force. More violence could follow, either future terrorist attacks or U.S. counterattacks. Belatedly, Americans would judge their leaders negligent for not addressing terrorism more urgently."

Zelikow's amazing prediction becomes somewhat less remarkable when we learn his own self-described expertise in the creation and management of "public myth." In a separate 1998 article on public myths, Zelikow identifies "generational" myths that are "formed by those pivotal events that become etched in the minds of those who have lived through them," before noting that the current set of public myths, formed during the New Deal in 1933, are currently fading.

Convenient for Zelikow, then, that the "Pearl Harbor" event that would define the next "generational" myth, known as the "War on Terror," would arrive just three years later, and that he would be in charge of the commission tasked with creating and managing the public perception of that myth.

Indeed, given his central role in the cover up of 9/11 and deflecting concern away from legitimate 9/11 suspects, any true investigation into the events of September 11th would involve a thorough interrogation of Philip D. Zelikow.

Mohawk Man says: 09/08/2016 at 12:21 am

Explosive reporting this week James. No pun intended. This is Pulitzer Prize stuff–again, no insult intended. I had no words for yesterdays EPA report. I was left speechless. John Stossell has lung cancer. I wonder where he was on 9/11. A non-smoker I believe but I would assume maybe a dope smoker but I am just surmising. Joined BF, finally.

Be careful and stay well. My best to your family including the little ones. Thank you for sharing your gifted work with the world. I hope I live to see a massive Crimes Against Humanity trial for most of these characters.

The Mohawk

Log in to Reply HomeRemedySupply says: 09/08/2016 at 2:20 am

Powerful

Log in to Reply nosoapradio says: 09/08/2016 at 3:53 am

"Catastrophic Terrorism" and "Management of Public Myth" indeed

You always go a step or two further than expected, than the known facts, offering the REAL ZINGERS! A real peek behind the curtain

Your work, the approach, the outstanding research, the synthesis, the structure

like that Peter Dale Scott interview

wow .Management of Public Myth !!

??

now, how can you possibly do better than this???

Torben Bo Hansen says: 09/08/2016 at 3:57 am

Dr. Alan Sabrosky, "Israel did 9/11" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0v7_O53J0k
Christopher Bollyn, "Solving 9/11" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVHstSrC1CQ

Log in to Reply PeasLuvandNRK says: 09/08/2016 at 8:04 am

Great segments this week, James.

I guess the answer may be self-evident but are we saying that Zelikow knows the whole real truth of 9/11? Like, is he "in on it"? What about Giuliani as well?

Log in to Reply PeasLuvandNRK says: 09/08/2016 at 8:20 am

Oh and, this is the person who has previously posted as totemynote.. I changed my screen name and will post with PeasLuvandNRK from now on. It's not just a whim, I have a reason for changing it.

Log in to Reply punchy1 says: 09/08/2016 at 9:17 am

Excellence once again James. The anticipation of the countdown to 11 Sep connected to the slow release of the crooks is killing me! Wonderful timing for maximum effect. I will be sharing the final playlist.

Log in to Reply Cu Chulainn says: 09/08/2016 at 11:03 am

Richard Clarke @6:25 was Mega. astute move for the Israeli agent to accuse Zelikow of being a fixer.

Log in to Reply sales2 says: 09/08/2016 at 11:06 am

YOU ARE RULING IT JAMES. THANK YOU.

Log in to Reply sunaj says: 09/08/2016 at 12:13 pm

Thanx James for another solid report-every citizen should read this,
btw if I want to make copies of a Corbett Report to pass out to fellow citizens, do I need any special permission? people need to see this material
sunaj

Log in to Reply Corbett says: 09/08/2016 at 8:29 pm

You are free to share and spread any of this info however you see fit. Thank you for helping to spread the word and raise awareness.

Log in to Reply m.clare says: 09/08/2016 at 9:39 pm

Top 10 Hoaxes of all time:

– 911
– JFK Assassination
– Global Warming
– Religion (all of them)
– Federal Reserve Act
– ISIS
– Left / Right divide and conquer tribal scapegoat distraction
– Pearl Harbour
– Gulf of Tonkin resolution
– Main Stream Media

Anybody have a different list of what they consider the most significant hoaxes of all time?

(Corbett's list of the 911 guilty is brilliant .imitation is the highest form of flattery)

– Rothschild takeover of bank of england

Log in to Reply m.clare says: 09/08/2016 at 10:01 pm

– 1974 Trudeau and pals borrow from BIS rather than the public's Bank of Canada. National debt has since ballooned to $1.3 trillion dollars. It's all Greek to me.

Log in to Reply nosoapradio says: 09/08/2016 at 11:25 pm

good one! X-))

Log in to Reply ccuthbert2001 says: 09/11/2016 at 10:05 am

In no particular order

-Da Ozone Ho'
-All of "Green" energy, esp ethanol in our cars
-Darwinian evolution
-Big Bang, Black Holes and anything from Hawking
-germ theory of disease
-cancer can't be cured
-cholesterol is bad, take statins and get Alzheimer's
-AIDS, SARS, Swine Flu, Ebola, Zika, vaccines and all of Big Pharma
-Round Up is biodegradable
-GMOs will end starvation
-Nukes at Hiroshima and Nagasaki
-German war guilt
-selling houses to each other will make us all rich
-paradox of savings
-inflation is good, deflation is bad, and all of "modern" economics
-Moon Landing
-Mars Mission, lemmings and all
-Elon Musk, SpaceX and we're going to Mars
-Rape Culture
-Rad Feminism, no diff between girls and boys ya know

I could go on and on. 😉

Log in to Reply tgmolitor says: 09/09/2016 at 1:46 am

Edward Bernays, father of public relations, writing in his book Propaganda:

"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of."

Like many, I was not aware of Philip Zelikow. Thanks for transforming "unaware" to "aware," James!

Log in to Reply PeasLuvandNRK says: 09/09/2016 at 5:19 am

QFC and/or question for fellow subscribers

Is it at all possible that people tasked with managing the 9/11 meme, like especially Zelikow, Giuliani, Bernard Kerik but also NIST, Popular Mechanics and so forth, given compartmentalized information to work with? Like, only just enough information to play their part? To me they all seem to be sort of accessories after the fact.

So, is the answer to this self-evident and I'm not seeing it? If not, is there a consensus and if so what?

Log in to Reply m.clare says: 09/09/2016 at 12:39 pm

Zelikow began writing the legend of 911 before it happened. He's as guilty as sin. I hear what you're saying. There likely WERE many involved that had just enough information to perform some small task without seeing the big picture. The names Corbett is dropping in this series are not those who got mixed up with something by accident. They are the string pullers. As far as NIST and Popular Mechanics go, they are a disgrace. Their behaviour is, at BEST, fraudulent.

Log in to Reply peace.froggs says: 09/09/2016 at 9:45 am

Zelikow was to the 9/11 commission what Arlen Specter was to the Warren Commission.

[Sep 09, 2018] Never Forget What the Deep State Wants You to Remember About 9-11

Notable quotes:
"... Are you tired of forgetting what it is you're supposed to remember not to forget about 9/11? Never fear! In this week's edition of ..."
"... , James will teach you the lessons that the 9/11 government terrorists and their corporate media lackeys want you to take away from that tragic day. For full access to the subscriber newsletter, and to support this website, please become a member . ..."
"... For free access to this editorial, please CLICK HERE . ..."
Sep 09, 2018 | www.corbettreport.com

"Never forget."

This is the mantra. The mantra that is repeated in the wake of every major false flag, every psychologically traumatizing incident that the deep state wishes to become a rallying cry for their next agenda item.

And so it is completely unsurprising that this mantra has been invoked to remind the public of that foundational event of the age of terror, 9/11.

"Never forget," we are told by the mockingbirds of the establishment press every year come September. And when I say "every year" I mean every / single / year / without / fail . (Well, sometimes it's a fail , but you get what I mean).

But never forget what , exactly? That is the question.

Are you tired of forgetting what it is you're supposed to remember not to forget about 9/11? Never fear! In this week's edition of The Corbett Report Subscriber , James will teach you the lessons that the 9/11 government terrorists and their corporate media lackeys want you to take away from that tragic day. For full access to the subscriber newsletter, and to support this website, please become a member .

For free access to this editorial, please CLICK HERE .

[Sep 09, 2018] New-"The Demolition of Truth-Psychologists Examine 9/11" Directors cut

Why the debate became a taboo? May be it became religious taboo. Religion deal with maters of ultimate concern.
Also as George Bernard Shaw said ""Patriotism.is your conviction that this country is superior to all others because you were born in it." and 911 became symbol of US patriotism, symbol of nationalist faith, your devotion to "Americanism".
That create cognitive dissonance about official story of 911 as soon as you start to suspect that it might be a false flag operation
Zelikow, along with long-time associate and commission consultant Ernest May, co-wrote a complete outline of the final report just three month into commission work
Sep 09, 2018 | www.youtube.com

15 years have passed.. There is substantial NEW evidence that the Government didn't address in their 9/1 I reports ...and hasn't even acknowledged since.

[Sep 07, 2018] Facts That Disprove the Official 9-11 White House "Conspiracy Theory" Why Are Good Americans Silent by Dr. Gary G. Kohls

Notable quotes:
"... Over the past 17 years since 9/11/01, the title question has plagued the tens of thousands of committed groups of highly intelligent and thorough truth-seeking scientists, physicists, architects, engineers, pilots, ex-military officers, ex-intelligence agents, firefighters, demolition experts, psychologists, medical professionals, etc, etc who have absolute proof that the official Cheney/Bush White House story about what happened on 9/11/01 was a "Big Lie", that was so easily perpetrated on a fearful, gullible and mainstream media-saturated public that was very willing to suspend their critical thinking skills and throw their trust onto authority figures that would tell them what they were supposed to believe, even if it was contrary to what they actually saw with their own eyes. Unfortunately, those pseudo-authority figures that have the power to dominate the media, also have a long history of being serial liars – and they have hidden ulterior motives and a willing mainstream media machine on which to perpetuate the lies. ..."
Sep 07, 2018 | www.globalresearch.ca

By Dr. Gary G. Kohls Global Research, September 07, 2018 Region: Europe , USA Theme: Crimes against Humanity , History , Law and Justice , Media Disinformation , Terrorism

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above

Over the past 17 years since 9/11/01, the title question has plagued the tens of thousands of committed groups of highly intelligent and thorough truth-seeking scientists, physicists, architects, engineers, pilots, ex-military officers, ex-intelligence agents, firefighters, demolition experts, psychologists, medical professionals, etc, etc who have absolute proof that the official Cheney/Bush White House story about what happened on 9/11/01 was a "Big Lie", that was so easily perpetrated on a fearful, gullible and mainstream media-saturated public that was very willing to suspend their critical thinking skills and throw their trust onto authority figures that would tell them what they were supposed to believe, even if it was contrary to what they actually saw with their own eyes. Unfortunately, those pseudo-authority figures that have the power to dominate the media, also have a long history of being serial liars – and they have hidden ulterior motives and a willing mainstream media machine on which to perpetuate the lies.

Millions of clear-headed people all over the world have gradually begun to disbelieve the Big Lies about 9/11 and have started to pay attention to the evidence that disproves the lies, even though they are big ones. The truth has a way of getting out – albeit usually too slowly – and thus these truth-seekers have seen through the propaganda that launched and perpetuated the lies. These clear-headed folks, with the unassailably truthful facts on their sides – all easily provable in a court of law – are naturally wondering what is going on with the perpetuation of the White House 9/11 Myths, and why has the truth been forbidden to be spoken of in average newspapers and media outlets like the ones in my home town?

Billions have seen the suffering, despair and slaughter of innocent Muslim women, children and old men that have been driven from their homes by US soldiers and their lethal high-tech weaponry.

Observers with open eyes and open hearts have seen the rape, pillage, plunder, deaths and decapitations (documented following US drone strikes and mortar attacks) of innocents, families, tribes, cultures, societies, religious sects and infrastructure, predictably provoking violent reprisals (including retaliatory beheadings) from justifiably angry victim-members of the invaded homeland who naturally desire revenge and retaliation against the homicidal "christian" invaders and occupiers that drew "first blood".

Qui Bono (Who Benefitted)?

Many observers know the names of the military, economic, corporate and political entities that were the beneficiaries from the post-9/11 wars. Those wars lavishly enriched them all, but it was at the expense of the doomed, deceived and psychologically deadened boots on the ground that did the dirty work for the perpetrators, all of whom were safely back in America orchestrating the chaos.

Many of us know the names of the war-profiteering oil cartels, weapons manufacturers, gun runners, the rent-a-mercenary corporations and all the other multinational and American corporations that enjoyed huge stock market gains back then – not just from the wars but also from the rumors of war – again at the expense of the soldiers and the deceived and pseudo-patriotic citizens watching the exciting carnage on TV.

The American Empire, the Pentagon, Full Spectrum Domination, "The New Pearl Harbor" and "Corporate Personhood"

A few observers also saw the connections between the pro-corporate, proto-fascist think tanks of the past few decades that include this short list of easily recognizable NeoConservative groups: Heritage Foundation, American Enterprise Institute, American Conservative Union, Americans for Tax Reform, American Legislative Exchange Council, American Family Association, the Chamber of Commerce, Christian Coalition of America, Club for Growth, Eagle Forum, Family Research Council, National Taxpayers Union, the various pro-Israel lobby groups, among about 800 others. And, of course, neither the Republican Party nor the Democratic Party are innocent in the active participation in the post-9/11 war-mongering activities.

Full Spectrum Domination for the US, Facilitated by a "New Pearl Harbor"

The leaders of the think tanks represented by the above short list seem to be peopled largely by draft-dodging Chicken Hawk insiders from the Cheney/Bush administration – that are consistently pushing for American military and economic hegemony abroad. The type of hegemony in secretly called "Full Spectrum Domination", which seems to be the operating principle that every Pentagon subsidiary endorses and which is pushed by every talking head retired general on Fox TV that has undeclared financial ties to the weapons industry that will automatically prosper in any perpetual war or "rumor of war" scenario.

Many of the Cheney-Bush insiders that gained tremendous political power after the stolen election in 2000 were members or had close connections to the nefarious Project for the New American Century – PNAC – that published in its manifesto "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force" exactly one year prior to 9/11/01. The following indicting sentence from their manifesto reveals its intent: "the process of transformation (i.e., achieving full spectrum planetary dominance by the US military), even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor". It doesn't take a genius to decide what group should be at the top of the list when the international war crimes tribunal starts to subpoena people to testify.

Interested in knowing who are the folks from PNAC? Immediately below, Pilots for 911 Truth has provided us with a list of the operatives that deserve to have their day in court to clear their names. They will have some pretty tough explaining to do. Check this out for much more. Here is the short list:

Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, John Bolton, Scooter Libby, Richard Armitage, Richard Perle, Dov Zakheim, Gary Bauer, William Kristol, William Bennett, Norman Podhoretz, Jeanne Kirkpatrick, James Woolsey, Robert Bork's daughter Ellen, Charles Krauthammer, Jeb Bush, Steve Forbes, Rudy Boschwitz and Vin Weber. No progressives were members of this NeoConservative think tank. (You can see the rest of the list of Republican members here ).

Fair-minded readers will agree that it is extremely important that voting Americans be mindful that every future election will be targeted by the NeoConservative 9/11 planners (including the old members of the PNAC noted above) that continue to actively work to achieve and maintain not only foreign, but also domestic full spectrum domination in the White House, the Supreme Court, the Senate and the House of Representatives as well as in all the state legislatures.

[Sep 06, 2018] 9/11 - The Footage They Didn't Let You See Twice

Sep 06, 2018 | www.youtube.com

(9/11 2001 Documentary) | 12 Sept 2017 | June 2001

CIA and NORAD use drones (remotely-controlled aircraft) to practice hijackings of airliners flown into buildings... Minutes before the first demolition, explosions in the lobby filled it with white smoke. (Forty minutes after impact.) Pre-weakening is essential in demolitions.

That smoke is much more visible seconds before demolition, as seen here...

Loud cutter-charge explosion sounds heard near WTC 7. (Video)

[Sep 02, 2018] Open letter to President Trump concerning the consequences of 11 September 2001 by Thierry Meyssan

Highly recommended!
Aug 30, 2018 | www.voltairenet.org

Mister President,

The crimes of 11 September 2001 have never been judged in your country. I am writing to you as a French citizen, the first person to denounce the inconsistencies of the official version and to open the world to the debate and the search for the real perpetrators.

In a criminal court, as the jury, we have to determine whether the suspect presented to us is guilty or not, and eventually, to decide what punishment he should receive. When we suffered the events of 9/11, the Bush Junior administration told us that the guilty party was Al-Qaïda, and the punishment they should receive was the overthrow of those who had helped them – the Afghan Taliban, then the Iraqi régime of Saddam Hussein.

However, there is a weight of evidence which attests to the impossibility of this thesis. If we were members of a jury, we would have to declare objectively that the Taliban and the régime of Saddam Hussein were innocent of this crime. Of course, this alone would not enable us to name the real culprits, and we would thus be frustrated. But we could not conceive of condemning parties innocent of such a crime simply because we have not known how, or not been able, to find the guilty parties.

We all understood that certain senior personalities were lying when the Secretary of State for Justice and Director of the FBI, Robert Mueller, revealed the names of the 19 presumed hijackers, because we already had in front of us the lists disclosed by the airline companies of all of the passengers embarked - lists on which none of the suspects were mentioned.

From there, we became suspicious of the " Continuity of Government ", the instance tasked with taking over from the elected authorities if they should be killed during a nuclear confrontation. We advanced the hypothesis that these attacks masked a coup d'état, in conformity with Edward Luttwak's method of maintaining the appearance of the Executive, but imposing a different policy.

In the days following 9/11, the Bush administration made several decisions:

- the creation of the Office of Homeland Security and the vote for a voluminous anti-terrorist Code which had been drawn up long beforehand, the USA Patriot Act. For affairs which the administration itself qualifies as " terrorist ", this text suspends the Bill of Rights which was the glory of your country. It unbalances your institutions. Two centuries later, it validates the triumph of the great landowners who wrote the Constitution, and the defeat of the heroes of the War of Independence who demanded that the Bill of Rights must be added.

- The Secretary for Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, created the Office of Force Transformation, under the command of Admiral Arthur Cebrowski, who immediately presented a programme, conceived a long time earlier, planning for the control of access to the natural resources of the countries of the geopolitical South. He demanded the destruction of State and social structures in the half of the world which was not yet globalised. Simultaneously, the Director of the CIA launched the " Worldwide Attack Matrix ", a package of secret operations in 85 countries where Rumsfeld and Cebrowski intended to destroy the State structures. Considering that only those countries whose economies were globalised would remain stable, and that the others would be destroyed, the men from 9/11 placed US armed forces in the service of transnational financial interests. They betrayed your country and transformed it into the armed wing of these predators.

For the last 17 years, we have witnessed what is being given to your compatriots by the government of the successors of those who drew up the Constitution and opposed at that time - without success – the Bill of Rights. These rich men have become the super-rich, while the middle class has been reduced by a fifth and poverty has increased.

We have also seen the implementation of the Rumsfeld-Cebrowski strategy – phoney " civil wars " have devastated almost all of the Greater Middle East. Entire cities have been wiped from the map, from Afghanistan to Libya, via Saudi Arabia and Turkey, who were not themselves at war.

In 2001, only two US citizens denounced the incoherence of the Bush version, two real estate promoters – the Democrat Jimmy Walter, who was forced into exile, and yourself, who entered into politics and was elected President.

In 2011, we saw the commander of AfriCom relieved of his mission and replaced by NATO for having refused to support Al-Qaïda in the liquidation of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. Then we saw NATO's LandCom organise Western support for jihadists in general and Al-Qaïda in particular in their attempt to overthrow the Syrian Arab Republic.

So the jihadists, who were considered as " freedom fighters " against the Soviets, then as " terrorists " after 9/11, once again became the allies of the deep state, which, in fact, they have always been.

So, with an immense upsurge of hope, we have watched your actions to suppress, one by one, all support for the jihadists. It is with the same hope that we see today that you are talking with your Russian counterpart in order to bring back life to the devastated Middle East. And it is with equal anxiety that we see Robert Mueller, now a special prosecutor, pursuing the destruction of your homeland by attacking your position.

Mister President, not only are you and your compatriots suffering from the diarchy which has sneaked into power in your country since the coup d'état of 11 September 2001, but the whole world is a victim.

Mister President, 9/11 is not ancient history. It is the triumph of transnational interests which are crushing not only your people, but all of humanity which aspires to freedom.

Thierry Meyssan brought to the world stage the debate on the real perpetrators of 11 September 2001. He has worked as a political analyst alongside Hugo Chavez, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Mouamar Kadhafi. He is today a political refugee in Syria.

Thierry Meyssan

See : Memoranda for the President on 9/11: Time for the Truth -- False Flag Deep State Truth! , by : Kevin Barrett; Scott Bennett; Christopher Bollyn; Fred Burks; Steve De'ak; A. K. Dewdney; Gordon Duff; Aero Engineer; Greg Felton; James Fetzer; Richard Gage; Tom-Scott Gordon; David Ray Griffin; Sander Hicks; T. Mark Hightower; Barbara Honegger; Eric Hufschmid; Ed Jewett; Nicholas Kollerstrom; John Lear; Susan Lindauer; Joe Olson; Peter Dale Scott; Robert David Steele; and indirectly, Victor Thorn and Judy Wood.

Thierry Meyssan Political consultant, President-founder of the Réseau Voltaire ( Voltaire Network ). Latest work in French – Sous nos Yeux. Du 11-Septembre à Donald Trump (Right Before our Eyes. From 9/11 to Donald Trump).

[Sep 02, 2018] Official narrative still can't explain Building 7 collapse, so the demolition hypothesis is the strongest of all alternatives

If the state manages to sustain the version of fire induced collapse that mean that the USA is a national security state and press is just lapdog of the establishment, fully controlled by CIA or other relevant agency.
Notable quotes:
"... Larry Silverstein: "I remember getting a call from the fire department, telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "you know, we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it, and they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse." ..."
Sep 02, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org
Mona Ahmed Zaki , Sep 2, 2018 4:46:00 PM | link

Did you know?

Just months before 9/11 the World Trade Center's lease was privatized and sold to Larry Silverstein.

Silverstein took out an insurance policy that "fortuitously" covered terrorism.

After 9/11 Silverstein took the insurance companies to court, claiming he should be paid double because there were two attacks.

Silverstein won, and was awarded $4,550,000,000.

The question on everyone's mind is:

Why is Silverstein claiming that airliners destroyed his buildings, when he has already confessed to demolishing at least one of them himself?

In the 2002 PBS documentary "America Rebuilds," Silverstein admitted to complicity in the controlled demolition of WTC-7, a 47-story skyscraper that dropped into its own footprint in 6.5 seconds.

Larry Silverstein: "I remember getting a call from the fire department, telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "you know, we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it, and they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

Snopes says lloyd Blankfein, real estate investor, was also an owner.

Of course, Blankfein is the Goldman Sachs CEO who claimed that he does gods work.

Snopes left that part out

Posted by: Fastfreddy | Sep 2, 2018 5:13:39 PM | 8

@ 8 Fastfreddy

The mysterious destruction of Building 7 has become the Rosetta Stone of 9/11.

Virtually all independent experts who have studied the case, including thousands of architects and engineers, agree that the government's explanation – that a few small office fires somehow destroyed WTC-7 – is a non-starter. Building 7, these experts say, was obviously taken down in a controlled demolition, as Silverstein himself admitted.

Despite his confession to demolishing his own building, Silverstein received $861 million from insurers for Building 7 alone, as well as over $4 billion for the rest of the Tr

According to Haaretz, Larry Silverstein was a close friend of Israeli Prime Ministers Ariel Sharon, Ehud Barak and Benjamin Natanyahu,

https://www.haaretz.com/1.5462012

Posted by: Mona Ahmed Zaki | Sep 2, 2018 6:09:39 PM | 15

ade Center complex. That $861 million for WTC-7 was paid on the basis of Silverstein's claim that airplanes were somehow responsible for making Building 7 (which was not hit by any plane) disappear at free-fall acceleration.

As for Snopes, wasn't the founder David Mikkelson accused of fraud and embezzling company funds?

Posted by: Mona Ahmed Zaki | Sep 2, 2018 5:58:11 PM | 13

[Aug 26, 2018] Techniques Used to Disrupt 9/11 Questioning

Notable quotes:
"... The Art of Being Right : 38 Ways to Win an Argument ..."
"... Popular Mechanics ..."
"... Air America ..."
Aug 26, 2018 | digwithin.net

June 24, 2018 by Kevin Ryan

In 2008, Harvard professors Cass Sunstein and Adrian Vermeule proposed that the government should engage in "cognitive infiltration" of citizen groups that seek the truth about 9/11. The proposal was that government operatives, whether anonymous or otherwise, should infiltrate and disrupt the groups. They wrote, "Government agents (and their allies) might enter chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine percolating conspiracy theories by raising doubts about their factual premises, causal logic or implications for political action. "

The following year, this anti-Constitutional stance was rewarded when Sunstein was made director of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. Members of the 9/11 Truth Movement responded with detailed criticism.

Of course, the idea of infiltrating a grassroots action group, to disrupt and defame its members, was not new. The FBI program called COINTELPRO was a widely reported example after it was revealed in the early 1970s to have infiltrated citizen groups seeking civil rights and peace. After being revealed, COINTELPRO techniques continued at the FBI and elsewhere in government.

Since 9/11, journalists have noted that government infiltration of political groups is no longer a rare exception but is the norm . The goals of such infiltration are to destabilize and prevent citizen dissent by creating a negative public image for the target group and conflict within the group. Infiltration is easy when it comes to a grassroots movement like 9/11 Truth. That is, you cannot just claim to be a 9/11 Commission member or an employee of a government agency but anyone can say they are a truth seeker. The beauty of this for government operatives is that they can control both sides of the conversation.

To make a significant impact, however, an infiltrator needs to quickly move into a position as a leading voice for the movement. One way in which this was done, even before Sunstein's proposal, was through a social variant of the physical principle called the " gravitational assist ." The physical principle leverages the movement and gravitational pull of a moon or planet to slingshot a spacecraft into a higher velocity trajectory by moving the path of the spacecraft near the larger body. The social variant is when a brief association with a leading voice in a group lends someone credibility that they would otherwise not have.

Examples of the gravitational assist occurred when physicist Steven Jones made news in September 2005 for challenging the official account of the World Trade Center destruction. People wanted their photo taken with him and he was invited to speak at many events. Soon afterward, Jim Fetzer, previously unknown to 9/11 investigators, dramatically announced that he and Jones were starting a new "scholars" group to challenge the official account of 9/11. That association led to Fetzer discrediting Jones and others through association with absurd concepts like Star Wars beams and holograms at the WTC.

It was later learned that Fetzer was an expert on the use of disinformation yet he and his colleagues Morgan Reynolds and Judy Woods went on to link 9/11 questioning with many preposterous ideas. They created nonsensical hypotheses and promoted them through mass emails targeting media representatives and others in order to present the 9/11 Truth Movement as a ludicrous spectacle.

When recently asked to help reveal more of what happened during that time, it occurred to me that people could benefit from learning the general techniques used to disrupt grassroots movements. Examined more closely, the techniques used by infiltrators or disruptors can be seen as expressions of commonly known rules of debate. Specifically, the rules are reflected in philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer's sarcastic publication, The Art of Being Right : 38 Ways to Win an Argument . Here are a few examples of how these techniques were used to disrupt 9/11 questioning.

" The Extension " takes a proposal beyond its intended limits so that the extended proposal can be refuted and thereby make the original statement sound weaker. A 9/11 example took the question about whether an aircraft had actually hit the Pentagon and extended it to all other aspects of 9/11. Therefore if there was no plane at the Pentagon then there were no planes at all, and no alleged hijackers, and so on.

" The Homonymy " is a misuse of a proposition through use of similar words. The government agency NIST utilized this method effectively by replacing words in its reports with weaker homonyms, making it easier for the unprecedented destruction of the WTC to sound more plausible. Therefore fireproofing became "insulation" and joists became "trusses."

Using the " Postulate What Has to Be Proved " rule, 9/11 disruptors presented and then destroyed their own straw man arguments. That is, they first framed the questions in simplified, diverting ways and then refuted those "straw man" frames. This was the go to technique of the "debunkers" at Popular Mechanics .

The method of " Make Your Opponent Angry " was frequently used. Through the years, infiltrators often resorted to baseless accusations, threats, and absurd insinuations. Luckily, this could be easily spotted.

In the " Agree to Reject the Counter-Proposition " technique, the disruptor frames the issue as two very distinct options. This is the "split screen" method that FOX News used so well over may years to move national discussions toward extreme views. With 9/11, it was again most well demonstrated by arguments over the Pentagon in which everyone was either a "planer" or a "no-planer." All other questioning about the Pentagon event was forsaken as a result of this mindless dichotomy.

Using " Arguments Ad Hominem ," Schopenhauer described how the opponent could be shown to be inconsistent and therefore untrustworthy. With 9/11 questioning, disruptors often attacked the person ( ad hominem ) rather than the argument itself.

Fetzer helped the government deflect questions by using the " Make Him Exaggerate His Statement " technique in which "when you refute this exaggerated form of it, you look as though you had also refuted his original statement." In the short time that he was in the 9/11 limelight, Fetzer would begin every interview with the claim that my former company UL had "certified the steel used in the World Trade center to 2000 degrees for six hours." Despite being an incorrect exaggeration, Fetzer continued to use it even after that fact was made clear to him. Ultimately this allowed the government agency NIST to refute Fetzer's exaggerated claim, quoting it word for word, rather than address true questions about UL's certification of the WTC steel components.

In the " Find One Instance to the Contrary " method, the disruptor simply finds one example of when a proposition was not met. For example, a disruptor would argue that because the WTC towers were destroyed from the top down, they could not be demolitions because all demolitions occur from the bottom up. This was the argument from "skeptic" Michael Shermer when I debated him on Air America radio in 2007. In order to support his contention, Shermer casually claimed to have watched thousands of demolition videos during the 2-minute radio break. Unfortunately for him, a top-down demolition was posted on a leading 9/11 truth website which I referred to at the time.

With the " Put His Thesis into Some Odious Category " technique, 9/11 questioning was frequently conflated with positions that were seen as hateful or stupid. This led to some members of the media lumping "truthers" in with "birthers," holocaust deniers, and those who question the moon landings.

In retrospect, it is comforting to know that so much effort at disruption was needed to prevent 9/11 questions from taking over the national discussion. It means that many people were informed to some degree and that citizen groups working for the truth were seen as a threat to a corrupt system. Many people are now aware that terrorism events are not as simple as the government and mainstream media portray them.

People need to be able to recognize infiltration of grassroots movements because the system will not change on its own. It's likely that only a catastrophic and catalyzing realization on the part of a large segment of society will lead to any real change and recognizing the techniques of disruption could help achieve that realization. Posted in 9/11 , Terrorism | Tagged Cass Sunstein , Disruption , Infiltration | 8 Comments

  1. geeyp says: June 25, 2018 at 4:55 am

    Sunstein and his wife Samantha Powers were quite the power couple weren't they? Oh yes, they are what we all strive for in our own lives here in America. Perfect fit for the last president's adminis tration. The CIA runs us all ragged and we suffer and pay hard times for it, pay our inheritance towards them, and feel guilty for not having more success in our own lives. I know that twinge hits me a little now and then. J. F. does give good talk and spins a good tale, although slightly unfocused. Not as dangerous as a Cass Sunstein, though. Punishment for the corruption of the previous two (16 years, though 1st one never officially elected, got in 'cause otherwise would hurt his feelings ) administrations could not happen soon enough. Reply

  2. geeyp says: June 25, 2018 at 5:07 am

    I want to add to my post that this piece is a great reminder, Kevin, of these characters from our recent past. Never forget the ongoing COINTELPRO operation wherever you find yourselves, people. Just like with the CIA's "conspiracy theory" JFK coverups, these people hand it down to the next generation of paid disinformation agents. I have spent my life explaining to anyone and their children the truths of JFK, MLK, RFK, 9/11 situations, and will until the day I die. Thanks again, Kevin, you do great work! Reply

  3. Bruce Terrence says: June 28, 2018 at 6:45 am

    So brilliant, so important and with points so obvious once the great mind of a great man, Kevin Ryan, makes it so clear. Thank you. Reply

  4. Ken Gerasimos says: June 28, 2018 at 7:34 pm

    How about BASIC PHYSICS? Jet fuel burns up at what temp? And steel becomes molten at about 1000 degrees hotter? Nano Thermite found at the site? And to go right along with that . . . the news broadcasts for a year that it was still too hot to get near it – at ground zero. Yeah . . . Okay. .live in fear now and remove freedoms. I think we got the jist of this game. Reply

  5. tmspell says: July 2, 2018 at 10:36 am

    Yes Kevin Thanks for working. "Dust" is what they called it and still call it today in the museum BUT it was and is all that powder ie 40,000 cubic yards of concrete broken and much of it pulverized (along with lots of other stuff) all in less than 15 seconds. Peace Tom

[Aug 25, 2018] Be Careful What You Ask For- Wasting Time with Manafort, Cohen, and Russiagate by Jim Kavanagh

Notable quotes:
"... First of all, the Democrats will now face increasing demands for impeachment from the impassioned members of their base whom they have riled up to see Trump as the epitome of the Putin-Nazi evil that threatens "our democracy." ..."
"... It would deeply undermine any notion that the political system holds the confidence of the people, and intensify division, disruption, and the sense of incipient civil war in the country more than any number of Russian Facebook posts. ..."
Aug 25, 2018 | www.counterpunch.org

But these crimes are tax fraud, money laundering, and credit app padding that have nothing to do with Donald Trump, and campaign-finance violations related to what a critic of Trump aptly describes as "a classic B-team type of bumbling screw-up of covering up mistresses." I question the level of word play, if not fantasizing, necessary to claim that these crimes validate " this investigation of foreign subversion." None of them has anything to do with that. The perils of this, that, these, and those.

Do these results disprove that the Mueller probe is "a political investigation"? I think they imply quite the opposite, and quite obviously so.

Why? Because these convictions would not have occurred if Hillary Clinton had been elected president. There would be no convictions because there would have been no investigation.

If Hillary had been elected, all the crimes of Manafort and Cohen -- certainly those that took place over many years before the election, but even, I think, those having to do with campaign contributions and mistress cover-ups -- would never have been investigated, because all would have been considered right with the political world.

The Manafort and Cohen crimes would have been ignored as the standard tactics of the elite financial grifting -- as well as of parasitism on, and payoffs by, political campaigns -- that they are. Indeed, there would have been no emergency, save-our-democracy-from-Russian-collaboration, Special Counsel investigation, from which these irrelevant charges were spun off, at all.

... ... ...

Have you heard of the Podestas? The Clinton Foundation? Besides, the economic purpose of American electoral politics is to funnel millions to consultants and the media. Campaign finance law violations? We'll see how the lawsuit over $84 million worth of funds allegedly transferred illegally from state party contributions to the Clinton campaign works out. Does the media report, does anybody know or care, about it? Will anybody ever go to prison over it?

... ... ...

First of all, the Democrats will now face increasing demands for impeachment from the impassioned members of their base whom they have riled up to see Trump as the epitome of the Putin-Nazi evil that threatens "our democracy." If the Democrats insist these convictions are not just matters of financial hijinx, irrelevant to Mueller's "Russia collusion" investigation, and irrelevant in fact to anything of political substance; if they assert that the payoffs to Stormy and Karen (the only acts directly involving Trump) disqualify Trump for the presidency, then they will have no excuse but to call for Trump's impeachment, and act to make it happen. Their base will demand that Democratic candidates run on that promise, and if the Democrats re-take the House, that they begin impeachment proceedings immediately.

... ... ...

If they try to impeach and fail (which is likely), well, then, as happened to the Republicans with Clinton, they will just look stupid, and will be punished for having wasted the nation's political time and energy foolishly. And Trump will be strengthened.

If they were to impeach, convict, and remove Trump (even by forcing a resignation), a large swath of the population would conclude, correctly, that a ginned-up litigation had been used to overturn the result of the 2016 election, that the Democrats had gotten away with what the Republicans couldn't in 1998-9. That swath of the population would likely withdraw completely from electoral politics, leaving all their problems and resentments intact -- hidden for a while, but sure to erupt in some other ways. It would deeply undermine any notion that the political system holds the confidence of the people, and intensify division, disruption, and the sense of incipient civil war in the country more than any number of Russian Facebook posts.

. .. ... ...

...if they do move forward, that will initiate a political battle that will tear the country apart and end up either with their defeat or the victory of Mike Pence.

... ... ...

By the way, for those who think that Manafort's conviction portends a smoking gun, based on his work for "pro-Kremlin Viktor Yanukovych," as the NYT and other liberals persistently call him, I would suggest looking at this Twitter thread by Aaron Maté. It's a brilliant shredding of Rachel Maddow's (and, to a lesser extent, Chris Hayes's) version of the deceptive implication -- presented as an indisputable fact -- that Manafort's work for Yanukovych is proof that he (and by extension, Trump) was working for Putin. As Maté shows, that is actually indisputably false. Manafort was working hard to turn Yanukovych away from Russia to the EU and the West, and the evidence of that is abundant and easily available. It was given in the trial, though you'd never know that from reading the NYT or listening to MSNBC. As a former Ukraine Foreign Ministry spokesman said: "If it weren't for Paul, Ukraine would have gone under Russia much earlier. He was the one dragging Yanukovich to the West." And the Democrats know this.

And if you think Cohen is harboring secret knowledge of Trump-Russia collusion that he's going to turn over to Mueller, take look at Maté's thread on that.

We are now entering a new period of intense political maneuvering that's the latest turning point in the bizarre and flimsy "Russiagate" narrative. I've been asked to comment on that a number of times over the past two years, and each time I or one of my fellow commentators would say, "Why are we still talking about this?" It was originally conjured up as a Clinton campaign attack on Trump, but, to my and many others' surprise and chagrin, it somehow morphed into the central theme of political opposition to Trump's presidency.

... ... ...

Russiagate was a pretext to dig around everywhere in his closet. Trump was clueless about the trap he was setting for himself, and has been relentlessly foolish in dealing with it. It is a witch hunt, and he's riding around on his broom, skywriting self-incriminating tweets.

There are a thousand reasons to criticize Donald Trump -- his racism, his stupidity, his infantile narcissism, his full embrace of Zionist colonialism with its demand to attack Iran, his enactment of Republican social and economic policies that are destroying working-class lives, etc. That he is a Kremlin agent is not one of them. His election was a symptom of deep pathologies of American political culture that we must address, including the failure of the "liberal" party and of the two-party system itself. That Donald Trump is a Russian agent is not one of them. There are a number of very good justifications for seeking his impeachment, starting with the clear constitutional crime of launching a military attack on another country without congressional authorization. That he is a Kremlin agent is not one of them.

Unfortunately, the Democratic Party and its allied media do not want to center the fight on these substantive political issues. Instead, they are centering on this barrage of Russiagate litigation -- none of which yet proves, or even charges, Russian "collusion" -- which they are using as a substitute for politics. And, in place of opposition, they're substituting uncritical loyalty to the heroes of the military-intelligence complex and "our democracy" that only a complete fantasist could stomach. I mean, when you get to the point that you're suspecting John Bolton's " ties to Russia " .

[Aug 13, 2018] Question to Mr. Mueller: Was 911 an insurance fire, or what ? by globalintelhub

Aug 12, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Grabbing some perspective here, fake news has been around long before Trump, who happens to be himself a reality TV star. As we explain in Splitting Pennies - the world is not as it seems (or as is presented on TV).

Global Intel Hub received the following text message from an ex-CIA operative who we obviously cannot disclose:

911 was an insurance fire. My neighbor's do this - I've lived in the South for 25 years when their house is in bad need of repair they light a fire and take the insurance check, only people from New York only Israelis only high-level military people are capable of organizing such a high-profile Insurance fire this was a Hollywood quality Blockbuster make no question about it this was an A+ event like nothing the world has ever seen if the Holocaust was a bold and aggressive move by Hitler; 9/11 was pure genius mazel tov

It doesn't take more than Google to read about the terrorism insurance clause taken out just months before the event, and connecting the dots from there is not hard.

Larry Silverstein was paid a little over $4.5 Billion in insurance money as a result of the destruction of the WTC complex:

Ending more than five years of bitter legal battles, the World Trade Center's insurance carriers agreed to fork over the remaining $2 billion in payments – a move that clears the way to rebuild the massive complex, Gov. Spitzer announced yesterday.

The deal with seven insurers brings the total payout for the World Trade Center to $4.55 billion, about $130 million less than what Ground Zero developer Larry Silverstein and the Port Authority had been seeking.

Then there is this issue about the WTC building itself. There were design flaws, the engineers knew it. The building would have needed billions in repairs, should it not have been destroyed on 911.

Here's how it probably went down. Sitting around the Kibbutz chatting, owner told friend about structural problems of WTC. Friend says "well I have a problem too, cannot get US help fighting Arabs, we need a 'Pearl Harbor' - let's kill 2 birds with one stone. Call our friends in Hollywood, in Washington, let's make a plan."

Owner: "Oh it will be epic!"

.. drama ensues

For more cutting edge intel visit www.globalintelhub.com

Crypto Currency Prices @ www.totalcryptos.com Tags Human Interest Other Specialty Retailers - NEC Semiconductors - NEC

Comments Vote up! 19 Vote down! 1

Buckaroo Banzai Sun, 08/12/2018 - 19:48 Permalink

9/11 was the biggest case of "Jewish lightning" ever pulled off.

Mazzy -> Buckaroo Banzai Sun, 08/12/2018 - 20:34 Permalink

Damn, you beat me to it B.B.

Jewish Lightning indeed. Look up the term in papers during the early 1900's. People noticed a connection back then. "Hmmmm, I wonder why all these jew owned tenement buildings are going up in smoke...." People were smart back then, no sense of guilt to hold them back from acknowledging the truth of the matter. Sadly all too many of the jews got away with it, their crummy buildings burned, the residents displaced, then they got new property paid for by the insurance company that they stole from due to a fraudulent fire.

oddjob -> Mazzy Sun, 08/12/2018 - 20:50 Permalink

Insurance fraud was on the laundry list of crimes committed that day. However, Fire is a believable cause for the collapse(s) only if you are learning disabled.

Bushogboner -> oddjob Sun, 08/12/2018 - 21:03 Permalink

I thought WTC7 free-fell out of sympathy for #1 & #2.

Hope Copy -> Bushogboner Sun, 08/12/2018 - 22:18 Permalink

LoL

Manthong -> Hope Copy Sun, 08/12/2018 - 23:39 Permalink

I guess few have seen the news report of WTC 7 seen falling before it fell .

OOP's ..

vaporland -> Buckaroo Banzai Sun, 08/12/2018 - 21:49 Permalink

Two guys sitting in the insurance adjustor's waiting room.

Guy #1: what happened?

Guy #2: lightning struck my store and burned it to the ground. How about you?

Guy #1: a flood destroyed my factory, wiped out everything.

Guy #2: how do you start a flood?

Posa -> Buckaroo Banzai Mon, 08/13/2018 - 00:05 Permalink

Absolute fake news... the overwhelming evidence is that 9/11 was terror spectacle engineered by the US military and intelligence with the Saudi Royal family. The purpose was to stampede the population into perpetual war -- a new or second Pearl Harbor as it were. And also to shred what remains of the US Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights.

Much of the story is documented in the Congressional 9/11 Inquiry (which is NOT the 9/11 Commission cover-up designed to refute the Congressional Inquiry)

Mossad has thoroughly infiltrated US intelligence whose key leaders were dual passport citizens so they likely knew that the CIA allowed al Qaeda figures into the US more than a year in advance of Sept 11th. But there is not the slightest shred of evidence that Mossad had any working operational role in 9/11... don't bother bloviating about dancing Jews unless you can bring some real evidence to the table.

AutoLode Sun, 08/12/2018 - 20:45 Permalink

Right out of silverburgstein's mouth came the command to "Pull it" literally on day one did it take this long to know what the plan was? Not for most of us

futureman Sun, 08/12/2018 - 21:09 Permalink

There is also plenty of evidence that the markets were being played as well: shorts on airline and insurance stocks and other trades that only make sense if you know what is coming. There is no doubt that there was foreknowledge of the event and that many actors profited handsomely from it.

BGO -> futureman Mon, 08/13/2018 - 00:08 Permalink

Correction- there WAS plenty of evidence that the markets were being played. All the evidence was conveniently destroyed by...(((Wall St.)))

fleur de lis Sun, 08/12/2018 - 21:10 Permalink

So when will Robert (M)Bueller go after his friends for the 911 murder spree?

Oh that's right -- every day is (B)Mueller's day off.

Bueller?

Mueller?

Juggernaut x2 -> fleur de lis Sun, 08/12/2018 - 22:08 Permalink

Mueller is in on the Kabuki Theater just like Trump and all the rest - it's just to make Trump look like a Maverick-y Swamp-Drainer while he is actually part of the Banker/Wall St/Fed ass-fucking that the US citizens are getting

HopefulCynical -> Juggernaut x2 Sun, 08/12/2018 - 23:12 Permalink

It's straight up bukakke theater, at this point.

Jury's still out as to which side Trump's on.

Drop-Hammer Sun, 08/12/2018 - 21:12 Permalink

There is no such thing as a COHENcidence.

Dragon HAwk Sun, 08/12/2018 - 21:44 Permalink

Once had a Jewish executive tell me once with a straight face, that a Jewish fathers responsibility to his son is to help him thru his first lawsuit so he can get established in Life.

JailBanksters Sun, 08/12/2018 - 21:58 Permalink

911 was many things, there was no single magic bullet.

It was the means for the USA to begin it's Global Rampage.

It solved all these problems ....

It allowed the US to get into Afghanistan to secure Lithium and Opium

It allowed the US to get into Iraq to seize their Oil, steal their Gold, hand over their Central Bank to the Rothschild's

It allowed the US to get into Libya to seize their Oil, steal their Gold, hand over their Central Bank to the Rothschild's

It gave the Bush Clown his 15 minutes of Fame and a boost in popularity he desperately needed
It allowed Silverstein to make a Profit on his purchase of the Towers

It allowed the US to Invade any country on the Pretext of Terrorism for any Country not buying US Bonds

It allowed the Pentagram to not worry about where 2.3 Trillion Dollars went missing

It allowed the MIC to get a boost in Sales and Profits by selling more Military Weapons

It allowed the US to prevent GazProm (Russian) from Installing a Pipeline to Syria

Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld all got Richer as a Direct result of these Wars

The CIA got more money, more control and more spying capability for Domestic and International

The Only downside is, a few people died as a result of collateral damage, but apart from that it was a Win Win for everyone.

loveyajimbo -> JailBanksters Sun, 08/12/2018 - 22:03 Permalink

Don't forget that it also cancelled out the Constitution, via the "Patriot" Act...

Hope Copy -> JailBanksters Sun, 08/12/2018 - 22:23 Permalink

Jawoll

wafm -> JailBanksters Sun, 08/12/2018 - 23:36 Permalink

"US" being interchangeable with "Israel" of coz...

elephant -> JailBanksters Sun, 08/12/2018 - 23:43 Permalink

The Only downside is, a few people died as a result of collateral damage, but apart from that it was a Win Win for everyone.

"A few people died" being many millions and counting.

Yes, maybe the biggest scam was getting the US military to murder Israel's enemies on an even larger scale than before. This was a Mossad operation with Deep State complicity.

VWAndy Sun, 08/12/2018 - 22:24 Permalink

Yep we got fucking played planet wide. An yes your government went along with it too.

file:///F:/Private_html/Skeptics/Political_skeptic/Two_party_system_as_poliarchy/US_intelligence_agencies_influence/FBI_mayberry_machiavellians/John_911_coverup_mueller

[Aug 08, 2018] Ten Bombshell Revelations From Seymour Hersh's New Autobiography

Highly recommended!
Aug 08, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Here are ten bombshell revelations and fascinating new details to lately come out of both Sy Hersh's new book, Reporter , as well as interviews he's given since publication...

1) On a leaked Bush-era intelligence memo outlining the neocon plan to remake the Middle East

(Note: though previously alluded to only anecdotally by General Wesley Clark in his memoir and in a 2007 speech , the below passage from Seymour Hersh is to our knowledge the first time this highly classified memo has been quoted . Hersh's account appears to corroborate now retired Gen. Clark's assertion that days after 9/11 a classified memo outlining plans to foster regime change in "7 countries in 5 years" was being circulated among intelligence officials.)

From Reporter: A Memoir pg. 306 -- A few months after the invasion of Iraq, during an interview overseas with a general who was director of a foreign intelligence service, I was provided with a copy of a Republican neocon plan for American dominance in the Middle East. The general was an American ally, but one who was very rattled by the Bush/Cheney aggression. I was told that the document leaked to me initially had been obtained by someone in the local CIA station. There was reason to be rattled: The document declared that the war to reshape the Middle East had to begin "with the assault on Iraq. The fundamental reason for this... is that the war will start making the U.S. the hegemon of the Middle East. The correlative reason is to make the region feel in its bones, as it were, the seriousness of American intent and determination." Victory in Iraq would lead to an ultimatum to Damascus, the "defanging" of Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, and Arafat's Palestine Liberation Organization, and other anti-Israeli groups. America's enemies must understand that "they are fighting for their life: Pax Americana is on its way, which implies their annihilation." I and the foreign general agreed that America's neocons were a menace to civilization.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/nUCwCgthp_E

* * *

2) On early regime change plans in Syria

From Reporter: A Memoir pages 306-307 -- Donald Rumsfeld was also infected with neocon fantasy. Turkey had refused to permit America's Fourth Division to join the attack of Iraq from its territory, and the division, with its twenty-five thousand men and women, did not arrive in force inside Iraq until mid-April, when the initial fighting was essentially over. I learned then that Rumsfeld had asked the American military command in Stuttgart, Germany, which had responsibility for monitoring Europe, including Syria and Lebanon, to begin drawing up an operational plan for an invasion of Syria. A young general assigned to the task refused to do so, thereby winning applause from my friends on the inside and risking his career. The plan was seen by those I knew as especially bizarre because Bashar Assad, the ruler of secular Syria, had responded to 9/11 by sharing with the CIA hundreds of his country's most sensitive intelligence files on the Muslim Brotherhood in Hamburg, where much of the planning for 9/11 was carried out... Rumsfeld eventually came to his senses and back down, I was told...

3) On the Neocon deep state which seized power after 9/11

From Reporter: A Memoir pages 305-306 -- I began to comprehend that eight or nine neoconservatives who were political outsiders in the Clinton years had essentially overthrown the government of the United States -- with ease . It was stunning to realize how fragile our Constitution was. The intellectual leaders of that group -- Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, and Richard Perle -- had not hidden their ideology and their belief in the power of the executive but depicted themselves in public with a great calmness and a self-assurance that masked their radicalism . I had spent many hours after 9/11 in conversations with Perle that, luckily for me, helped me understand what was coming. (Perle and I had been chatting about policy since the early 1980s, but he broke off relations in 1993 over an article I did for The New Yorker linking him, a fervent supporter of Israel, to a series of meetings with Saudi businessmen in an attempt to land a multibillion-dollar contract from Saudi Arabia . Perle responded by publicly threatening to sue me and characterizing me as a newspaper terrorist. He did not sue.

Meanwhile, Cheney had emerged as a leader of the neocon pack. From 9/11 on he did all he could to undermine congressional oversight. I learned a great deal from the inside about his primacy in the White House , but once again I was limited in what I would write for fear of betraying my sources...

I came to understand that Cheney's goal was to run his most important military and intelligence operations with as little congressional knowledge, and interference, as possible. I was fascinating and important to learn what I did about Cheney's constant accumulation of power and authority as vice president , but it was impossible to even begin to verify the information without running the risk that Cheney would learn of my questioning and have a good idea from whom I was getting the information.

4) On Russian meddling in the US election

From the recent Independent interview based on his autobiography -- Hersh has vociferously strong opinions on the subject and smells a rat. He states that there is "a great deal of animosity towards Russia. All of that stuff about Russia hacking the election appears to be preposterous." He has been researching the subject but is not ready to go public yet.

Hersh quips that the last time he heard the US defense establishment have high confidence, it was regarding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. He points out that the NSA only has moderate confidence in Russian hacking. It is a point that has been made before; there has been no national intelligence estimate in which all 17 US intelligence agencies would have to sign off. "When the intel community wants to say something they say it High confidence effectively means that they don't know."

5) On the Novichok poisoning

From the recent Independent interview -- Hersh is also on the record as stating that the official version of the Skripal poisoning does not stand up to scrutiny. He tells me: "The story of novichok poisoning has not held up very well. He [Skripal] was most likely talking to British intelligence services about Russian organised crime." The unfortunate turn of events with the contamination of other victims is suggestive, according to Hersh, of organised crime elements rather than state-sponsored actions –though this files in the face of the UK government's position.

Hersh modestly points out that these are just his opinions. Opinions or not, he is scathing on Obama – "a trimmer articulate [but] far from a radical a middleman". During his Goldsmiths talk, he remarks that liberal critics underestimate Trump at their peril.

He ends the Goldsmiths talk with an anecdote about having lunch with his sources in the wake of 9/11 . He vents his anger at the agencies for not sharing information. One of his CIA sources fires back: "Sy you still don't get it after all these years – the FBI catches bank robbers, the CIA robs banks." It is a delicious, if cryptic aphorism.

* * *

6) On the Bush-era 'Redirection' policy of arming Sunni radicals to counter Shia Iran, which in a 2007 New Yorker article Hersh accurately predicted would set off war in Syria

From the Independent interview : [Hersh] tells me it is "amazing how many times that story has been reprinted" . I ask about his argument that US policy was designed to neutralize the Shia sphere extending from Iran to Syria to Hezbollah in Lebanon and hence redraw the Sykes-Picot boundaries for the 21st century.

He goes on to say that Bush and Cheney "had it in for Iran", although he denies the idea that Iran was heavily involved in Iraq: "They were providing intel, collecting intel The US did many cross-border hunts to kill ops [with] much more aggression than Iran"...

He believes that the Trump administration has no memory of this approach. I'm sure though that the military-industrial complex has a longer memory...

I press him on the RAND and Stratfor reports including one authored by Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz in which they envisage deliberate ethno-sectarian partitioning of Iraq . Hersh ruefully states that: "The day after 9/11 we should have gone to Russia. We did the one thing that George Kennan warned us never to do – to expand NATO too far."

* * *

7) On the official 9/11 narrative

From the Independent interview : We end up ruminating about 9/11, perhaps because it is another narrative ripe for deconstruction by sceptics. Polling shows that a significant proportion of the American public believes there is more to the truth. These doubts have been reinforced by the declassification of the suppressed 28 pages of the 9/11 commission report last year undermining the version that a group of terrorists acting independently managed to pull off the attacks. The implication is that they may well have been state-sponsored with the Saudis potentially involved.

Hersh tells me: "I don't necessarily buy the story that Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11. We really don't have an ending to the story. I've known people in the [intelligence] community. We don't know anything empirical about who did what" . He continues: "The guy was living in a cave. He really didn't know much English. He was pretty bright and he had a lot of hatred for the US. We respond by attacking the Taliban. Eighteen years later How's it going guys?"

8) On the media and the morality of the powerful

From a recent The Intercept interview and book review -- If Hersh were a superhero, this would be his origin story. Two hundred and seventy-four pages after the Chicago anecdote, he describes his coverage of a massive slaughter of Iraqi troops and civilians by the U.S. in 1991 after a ceasefire had ended the Persian Gulf War. America's indifference to this massacre was, Hersh writes, "a reminder of the Vietnam War's MGR, for Mere Gook Rule: If it's a murdered or raped gook, there is no crime." It was also, he adds, a reminder of something else: "I had learned a domestic version of that rule decades earlier" in Chicago. "Reporter" demonstrates that Hersh has derived three simple lessons from that rule:

  1. The powerful prey mercilessly upon the powerless, up to and including mass murder.
  2. The powerful lie constantly about their predations.
  3. The natural instinct of the media is to let the powerful get away with it.

* * *

... ... ...

[Aug 05, 2018] 9-11 Conspiracy Solved Names, Connections, Details Exposed!

Aug 05, 2018 | www.youtube.com

Published on Oct 31, 2012

Was 9/11 really an Inside Job? After reviewing this documentary, and checking the evidence, I think the answer will be clear to you.
http://www.alienscientist.com/911/911...

Special thanks to Michael C. Ruppert, Mark H. Gaffney, and Kevin Ryan for solving the crimes of 9/11 with their amazing research. This video is a compilation of evidence they have uncovered.

"Crossing the Rubicon" - The Decline of American Empire at the end of the age of oil
http://www.fromthewilderness.com

"Black 911" by Mark H. Gaffney:
http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2...

Was 9/11 an Inside Job?
http://www.informationclearinghouse.i...

A guide to 9/11 Whistleblowers
http://www.corbettreport.com/articles...

Project Hammer
http://decryptedmatrix.com/live/bushs...

WTC 6
http://www.whale.to/b/wtc_6_h.html

SEC Act Section 12(k)2:
http://www.sec.gov/rules/other/34-447...

Richard Grove's testimony (complete transcript)
http://www.freewebs.com/abigsecret/gr...

"Collateral Damage" by E.P. Heidner
http://www.wanttoknow.info/911/Collat...

The CIA's forty-year complicity in the narcotics trade by Alfred W. McCOY
http://www.cob.sjsu.edu/facstaff/davi...

Executive Order 12333 created an agreement between the CIA and Justice Department (DEA) to look the other way on Government Drug Trafficking: http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-...

AIG and Drug Money
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free...

Maurice Greenberg's report for the CFR
http://www.fas.org/irp/cfr.html

Richard Armitage, Frank Carlucci, Herbert Winokur, and company
http://digwithin.net/2012/04/08/911-a...

Post 9/11 Promotions:
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007...

9/11 Gold Theft and other smoking guns:
http://911review.org/Wget/Killtown/9_...
http://killtown.911review.org/odditie...

Kevin Ryan's landmark article on who had "Demolition access to the WTC Towers":
Tenants:
http://www.911review.com/articles/rya...
Security:
http://www.911review.com/articles/rya...
Convergence:
http://www.911review.com/articles/rya...
Clean Up:
http://www.911review.com/articles/rya...

Kevin R. Ryan, et al, Environmental anomalies at the World Trade Center: evidence for energetic materials, The Environmentalist, Volume 29, Number 1 / March, 2009, http://www.springerlink.com/content/f...

Kevin R. Ryan, The Top Ten Connections Between NIST and Nanothermites, Journal of 9/11 Studies, July 2008, http://www.journalof911studies.com/vo...

Website for In-Q-Tel, http://www.iqt.org/technology-portfol...

Wikipedia page for Jerome Hauer, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome_H...

Peter Jennings interview with Jerome Hauer, ABC, on 9/11, 14:53 , available on You Tube, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dj0Rz9...

Taku Murakami, US Patent 5532449 - Using plasma ARC and thermite to demolish concrete, http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/553...

Albert Gibson et al, Integral low-energy thermite igniter, US Patent number: 4464989, http://www.google.com/patents/about?i...

Michael C. Ruppert, Suppressed Details of Criminal Insider Trading Lead Directly into the CIA's Highest Ranks, October 9, 2001, http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free...

Kevin R. Ryan, Mahmud Ahmed's itinerary from his Washington DC visit the week of 9/11, 911blogger.com, 11/27/2009, http://www.911blogger.com/node/21978

The agreement between LLNL and Savannah River can be found here - https://www.llnl.gov/str/News597.html

Savannah's reference to developing sol-gels can be found here - http://srnl.doe.gov/mat_sci.htm

SEC document for Washington pre-payments - http://www.secinfo.com/dRqWm.4G1Vx.c.htm

The Ties That Bind, Descended from family business empires, six huge business groups dominate the Japanese economy, Multinational Monitor, October 1983 - http://multinationalmonitor.org/hyper...

Securacomm Consulting Inc. v. Securacom Incorporated, United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, January 20, 1999, 49 U.S.P.Q.2d 1444; 166 F.3d 182, http://altlaw.org/v1/cases/1099498

Wikipedia page for Stratesec, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratesec

SEC filing for Stratesec, May 2, 1997, http://www.secinfo.com/dS7kv.82.htm

Kroll Inc website, http://www.kroll.com/about/


Axess2084 , 1 year ago

Wow! What a collection of highly connected murderers and thieves in this documentary! They all make me sick. None of them will ever face justice though. They own our government.

music2306lover , 2 months ago

Wow....what an eye opener... I would never have seen this but for the SGT Report which just mentioned your video.......and now my eyes are wide open❗️❗️❗️

kane zim , 7 months ago

THE BUSHES ARE MORE EVIL N CROOKED THAN THE CLINTONS

Al Demir , 6 months ago

this is not a joke is it, if not than are we still in same danger zone. and the same people running the government?

bendigger 0 , 2 years ago

The truth about 9/11 is too painful for most U.S. Citizens to accept. INSIDE JOB!

Godskingdomwithin , 3 years ago

What is really sad is that those of you who are thinking the "truthers," have opinions about 9/11 that are misguided, and someone suggested, that there is no scientific evidence to support our suspicions concerning 9/11!! Did you know that on Sept 10th, 2001, Donald Rumsfeld announced that 2.3 TRILLION dollars went missing at the Pentagon. Less than 24 hours later, the section of the Pentagon, that contained all the records concerning what happened to that money, not too mention the employees that could have done an investigation, were destroyed! Have you ever seen a video, or picture, of the Jet that supposedly hit the Pentagon? You do know(many people don't) that there was a 3rd building that went down(never hit by a Jet)building 7, and it, like the two Towers went down in. "Free fall," which many engineers say should not Have happened! Also, many pilots say no person that learned how to fly the way they did, could ever fly a jet, and hit a target like that!. Also, 15 of the 19 terrorists that were part of that attack, were Saudi's! Why then did we attack Iraq when there was no evidence that they had anything to do(bin Laden as well)with 9/11! Did you ever see a picture, or any evidence of the "weapons of mass destruction, that Bush kept saying in his mantra for war with Iraq? Do remember the "shock and awe," campaign, where Bush dropped the whole weight of the Military Industrial Complex on Iraq killing tens of thousands of women and children, which has contributed to Babis being born with birth defects because of the toxicity of the weapons used, to this day! Those of you that attack the Truthers, are surely different in one major respect, and that is while apparently you enjoy taking it up the ass by those you defend, and are part of the problem, and the Truthers do not accept that, or what our Government did in our name! You truly need to educate yourselves, before the earth under your feet is sold out right from under you!

Jam Tarts , 6 months ago

How come it took Bush 441 days to start an investigation into the matter? Remember now, it was a total surprise attack that nobody could possibly have seen coming that took 3,000 innocent Americans lives! Don't you recon the government would want to find out exactly how that could have happened and see what lessons could have been learned so it could never happen again! Of course they would! An investigation would have been swung into action within days and money would have been no object.

Agarbeau , 2 years ago

At least 10 of the "original" terrorists are alive and well working in Saudi Arabia, Morocco, and elsewhere. It is really strange that we cannot get anything accurate from the government of the USA or their foreign accomplices. Bush, what a shame his rotten family didn't die out centuries ago. Liar, war criminal, mass murderer, thief, and Republican.

Delaware Destroyer , 1 month ago

It was israel and all its zionist cohorts

KaiLynn Darkpixie , 3 years ago

CIA, NSA, Obama and all those zionists: a lie has short legs, in time of internet and WiFi you cant hide the truth

inga robinson , 1 year ago

I did not wanted to believe that it was an inside evil plot til today watching this video now i see clearly it is so horrific it is breath taking ! Now i understand that all world events are manipulated by a large group of globalist including all the Bushes , it makes me sick !

mallik sharma , 3 years ago

This video contends and tries to prove by evidence that 9/11 was an insider job and the Bush gang is involved in it. Anyway this means a thorough and impartial criminal investigation is needed into the incidents and that can only be best done by an international commission/court.

Dennis Hopper , 2 years ago (edited)

this is the best 9/11 doc i've seen, maybe a v2 is in order? i'd love to see some real proof or documentation on project hammer which is kind of the linchpin of this whole thing. there is not much out there on it or at least not easily found... also sources for other info presented would be great and would really help the doc's credibility

j holmer , 1 year ago

Didn't the US government hide 29 pages of the 911 omission report and were recently forced to reveal some of this document showing Saudi Arabia involvement in 911 terrorist attack (why would they do this if they were telling the truth)? 15 of the 19 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia. The US government has blown up 7 countries over the past 15 years and none of them harboured terrorists? Couple that with the fact that the Iraq war was based on lies. Millions have been killed, trillions lost, the American middle class destroyed (including heroin from Afghanistan), a large area of the middle east is now uninhabitable, and none of the perpetrators of these massive, unprecedented crimes against humanity have been brought to justice. To any person who is not brain dead - it is obvious that 911 was an inside job and the US government is an organization that is full of professional liars. 911 is just one of numerous mechanisms employed by the US government to steal the wealth of American middle class, enslave the people and establish a new world order.

s lloyd , 3 weeks ago

Spent two days looking all Of this info up. Everything is true and it's startling

ThePubliusValerius , 3 years ago

Excellent analysis. Thank you.

Bella Von , 3 years ago

My account of the day 9/11/2001: (*Message To Youtube: Do Not Delete This Post, It Is Absolutely The Truth) I went to bed at 10:30 p.m. ( 11:30 EST) the night before that fatal day; I had to get up to go to my 8:00 a.m. ( 9:00 EST) class to take my college Algebra exam. I set my alarm for 6:30 a.m. ( 7:30 EST) and went to bed that night in my dorm room. I woke up when the alarm sounded and went to get into the shower; I groggily noted that my roommate had left the television on the news, as usual and had already left the room. I came back into the room from the shower and put on my clothes and was dressed by 7:15 a.m. ( 8:15 EST). Since my class would not start for another 45 minutes I decided to sit down and watch the news before I left. The news day was unusually calm that day and uneventful. I can remember the news reporters casually chatting about their own lives and giddily laughing. Outside my dorm room the sun was shining brightly, a beautiful warm day. It was my first semester in college at University of Central Arkansas; I was 18 years old and classes had just started a few weeks earlier. I was at that age where I was still filled with awe and optimism about life and the future. I had no way of knowing that all that was about to change. The one thing I cannot explain is why I kept sitting there; even though judging by the time it would take for me to go to my class; I should have left the room at about 7:40 a.m. ( 8:40 EST) at the latest. At around 7:48 a.m. ( 8:48 EST) the first report of a plane hitting the North Tower was reported. My initial thought was that a plane had malfunctioned and the pilot had loss control while trying to do an emergency landing and flown accidently into the WTC. I continued to sitting there listening to reporters speculate to why the plane had malfunctioned or if it was an intentional crash. This next information I remember vividly as if it happened yesterday and I have been haunted and tormented by this memory for almost 14 years now. As the reporters in the news center, were still sitting and speculating, a blond female correspondent wearing a red over coat or jacket broke into their conversation at 8:02 a.m. ( 9:02 EST). Her statements, to the best of my recollection were: "Excuse me, I am sorry to break into your conversation, but I have the report of a second plane that has hit World Trade Center 2. Now, if you look behind me you can see the smoke and the damage from a second plane which has hit the South Tower. The camera panned towards where she was indicating. There was a look of confusion that spread over the two reporters faces in the studio; as well as my own because there was no damage or smoke coming out of the South Tower. Then just as I was thinking that maybe she did not realize we could not see the smoke and the damage from that angle, a plane came into view right behind her head going directly towards the South Tower. All the reporters, including the female correspondent, then seemed surprised, apprehensive and clearly rattled. Then the whole channel went static for about 10 minutes. I was confused and scared, I did not know what had occurred; I assumed that there was a third plane that hit the towers. The moment I had heard the second report of another plane; I realized that it was deliberate and thought, "We are under attack". When the station came back up, my eyes never left the screen until about 1:30 p.m. ( 2:30 EST) when I decided to go down stairs; I continued to think a third plane had hit at World Trade Centers, even though the news reporters were only reporting two. It was not until around 7:00 p.m. ( 8:00 EST) when some of us decided to go outside and smoke and we began to discuss that day's events that I was told repeatedly by my friends that I was wrong that only two planes hit the towers that I realize this was the truth. They could not understand why I would think this was true being that I was aware of both crashes at the Pentagon and the crash in a field in Pennsylvania. After we all decided to go up to bed, I remember tiredly climbing three flights of stairs to my dorm room, changing into my bed clothes, and falling exhaustedly into the bed. I laid there still awake for, and then suddenly the realization hit me, the reporter had reported the second plane before it the tower. I knew the implications of this fact and it made me sick to my stomach. The only way she could have known about that plane before it happened was if she had been told about the event before it happened. Since I was sure the "terrorist" would not have called her or the news station and reported they were about to fly a plane into that tower then I was certain that this meant the whole event, including the report was planned by someone who had the authority and the power to get her and the news station to go along with their plan− it could only be the government. If I had a copy of this event on tape, I would not rest until it was viewed by the world and that these people who are responsible for the deaths of almost 3000 people on 09/11/2001, many people who have died from cancer after inhaling the toxic dust from the collapses of the towers, all the soldiers who fought and died in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as the deaths of the Afghan and the Iraqi men, women and children, had been indicted for conspiracy to murder. I have lived with this knowledge for years and I will not suffer in silence another day; while these criminals continue to lie to the American people and to the world. John 8:32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. Matthew 18:7 Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!

Andrew H , 3 years ago (edited)

Wow. All I can say is wow. I've wondered exactly who and why for 5 years now. I mean, I understood that Bush and Cheney were involved somehow...why else would they want to impede the investigation??? I mean, what kind of evil mainstream media journalist doesn't see a humongous issue just on that point alone? And yet they were ALL silent. What a bunch of excuses for journalists we have in our country...all cowards or idiots. There is no other option for them. And no, it';s not an excuse if your editor boss says to not say or do anything. Bring a freaking tape recorder and RECORD him saying that, if that happens. What's the point of a journalism degree these days? Why not just major in Physical Education, since they're so busy jumping when TPTB say jump. But everything ties in now. It's obvious that GHWB and his criminal, treasonous cronies are responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths! And yet no one does anything? Where are our congressmen? We seriously need a third party...some other option except for the democrats and republicans, since they are both following the same fascist, socialist agenda.

Jam Tarts , 6 months ago

Having served in the British army and knowing how hard it was to get a single penny from them without having all the proper paperwork and receipts to back your claim up, I find it so very hard to believe that 2.3 trillion dollars could just disappear without trace from the Pentagons budget and there wasn't the mother of all inquiries to find out why! What's to stop it happening in the future? Trust me when I say that they are not that slack with the purse strings unless high level crookery is at hand!

nismo glider , 2 years ago

This is 1 of the most damming reports into 911 on YT. With everything this indepth video explains, which Almost on its own proves an inside job, why is there not another enquiry report and people brought to trial!?!?!!? Excellent video. Everyone please watch in its entirety as it's very interesting.

[Aug 05, 2018] Christopher Bollyn 2015 Solving 911 Ends the War v.1

Aug 05, 2018 | www.youtube.com

Abel Danger , 3 years ago (edited)

Christopher Bollyn 2015 "Solving 911 Ends the War" THERMITE & Israel's deep roots +Netanyahu Benjamin 

Devon Graham , 3 years ago

The best presentation on 9/11 you will ever see. Christopher Bollyn is a hero.

Toxicnut1 , 2 years ago

Look up the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty in '67, if you have any doubts how evil that bunch can be.

Greg Burton , 3 years ago

9/11 Truth ends the global police state. 9/11 Truth ends 9/11 endless wars of pillage. 9/11 Truth ends the "Muslim boogieman" pretext for the so-called "war on terror". 9/11 Truth ends the rule of the banking/drug/military-intelligence cartel. 9/11 Truth ends Israeli (Rothschild city of London) plans to establish an empire of Asia Minor c/o of the late, great, irradiated United States. 9/11 Truth ends the concocted 'Clash of Civilizations' meant to divide and destroy organized religion (Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Torah Judaism) and elevate the religion of the elite, the occult. 9/11 Truth ends the global depopulation agenda. 9/11 Truth ends the Satanic NWO.

Darwin McLeod , 2 years ago

thank you sir...very good presentation...when is our government going to investigate and bring justice

will s , 3 years ago

THIS is the BEST! 

EnOs , 3 years ago

Amazing presentation. Everyone should see this

Volksverhetz , 3 years ago

THIS IS A SPECTACULAR PRESENTATION. GOD BLESS CHRISTOPHER BOLLYN!

Nigel Martin , 3 years ago

Thanks for your hard work and courage.

northerntruthseeker , 3 years ago

First comment? Shocking.. Israel did 9-11.... No doubt about it... Using their minions and slaves in the US Government as well as compliant trolls to pull off the atrocity...

lcking56 , 3 years ago

Youtube will not let me give this video a thumbs up...

Keiran Bradley , 2 years ago

Those murderers make me sick, how do these "people" live with themselves ?.

saintⓋearth , 3 years ago (edited)

How come people don't demand to have the Pentagon videos released? And why are the video's not openly declassified and shown? If they showed the Jet flying into the Pentagon that could help diminish some of the doubt people have with the official story.

ray lerwill , 3 years ago

my hero! WOW! REFRESHING to hear some TRUTH in our little fairy tale we live today or nightmare!

Jam O , 2 years ago

the people mentioned are evil, godless creatures who are controlling us, we must break their stranglehold on us

digitalavatarmeister , 3 years ago

When good men are silent, evil flourishes. It seems that Americans prefer a police state and endless war and hate as opposed to truth and justice and dignity. What a society! If it's true that people get the government they deserve, then we're in big trouble.

Sergekow , 2 years ago (edited)

Excellent! Well Done!

Sunbro von Astora , 2 years ago

People you need to share this video with all people you know and tell them to share it with all people they know and so on. Post it all over the internet and tell people to watch it. If we want to change something, we need to reach the masses.

Richard Bambenek , 2 years ago

If you dig deep enough everything like this is all about money. Everything else including human life is irrelevant.

Ricsi bacsi , 3 years ago

EVIL PEOPLE,ALL OF THE TRIBE. Be very careful Mr.Bollyn.

[Aug 05, 2018] A real collusion happened with 911. The BBC knew that tower 7 would fall before it did

Aug 05, 2018 | www.unz.com

Robjil , August 3, 2018 at 7:19 pm GMT

@jilles dykstra

A real collusion happened with 911. The BBC knew that tower 7 would fall before it did. Israelis danced before the tumbling towers. They said that they were video taping the event. Why? How did they know it was going happen? How did the BBC know it would happen? The US obviously knew it. It is the biggest military in the world. Yet it did nothing to stop it. Solving 911 by Christopher Bollyn names names. Everyone knows about this real collusion. Everyone fears our rulers, so they remain silent. Silence is not golden. Power unchallenged goes on forever...

[Jul 16, 2018] It was known that Dov Zakheim had secretly arranged for $2.3 trillion dollars to be mis-appropriated through Pentagon channels when he had been the Pentagon Comptroller

Notable quotes:
"... Evidence and expert testimony confirm without a doubt that the attacks on September 11, 2001 against the Pentagon (as well as the World Trade Center and the Solomon Building in N.Y.) were a well-planned, well-financed, psychological operation – a false flag attack on American soil – designed to trigger and manipulate the American people, the Congress, and the U.S. Military into a full-scale war-mobilization posture with the intent of overthrowing, scattering, and re-making the Middle East and Africa for the direct political, cultural, and economic benefit of the Zionist state of Israel ..."
Jul 16, 2018 | consortiumnews.com

Joe Tedesky , July 14, 2018 at 10:05 pm

Read Scott Bennett's letter to President Trump . it will make you think.

https://ahtribune.com/us/israelgate/2358-dov-zakheim.html

Joe Tedesky , July 15, 2018 at 12:04 pm

"Part of my mission was to investigate, discover, and expose all acts of "waste, fraud, and abuse" by Terrorist Financing Operations Director Dov Zakheim who was my senior supervisor. It was known that Dov Zakheim had secretly arranged for $2.3 trillion dollars to be mis-appropriated through Pentagon channels when he had been the Pentagon Comptroller." Scott Bennett

Gregory Herr , July 15, 2018 at 11:49 pm

Double WOW. Great catch Joe.

"Evidence and expert testimony confirm without a doubt that the attacks on September 11, 2001 against the Pentagon (as well as the World Trade Center and the Solomon Building in N.Y.) were a well-planned, well-financed, psychological operation – a false flag attack on American soil – designed to trigger and manipulate the American people, the Congress, and the U.S. Military into a full-scale war-mobilization posture with the intent of overthrowing, scattering, and re-making the Middle East and Africa for the direct political, cultural, and economic benefit of the Zionist state of Israel."

[Jul 09, 2018] Pancake theory weakness: It is impossible that floors above break floors below and continue breaking them up to the ground level. If the floors below disintegrate, then the floors above also disintegrate.

Notable quotes:
"... normally you do not get steelbars to 400 Celsius because heat escapes by conduction and radiation ..."
Jul 09, 2018 | www.unz.com

j2 , July 6, 2018 at 5:28 am GMT

@Momus

Momus writes:
"Showproof of your masters degree in engineering please.

Of course it was a gravitational collapse. The footage shows the section above the damaged, weakened, fire affected area coming down first in both.

What do you think happened?
Nanothermite toting Mossad suicide demolition gremlins entered the building after the planes hit and set up?"

Consider your proposal of pancaking floors. Either the floors do not disintegrate to dust and we find a pack of floors on top of each other in Ground Zero. This we know was not found. Or the floors hitting each other disintegrate to dust. In that case the floors from up disintegrate the floors from down, but the floors from down also disintegrate the floors from up and the collapse stops inn the middle of the building as the floors above that drop on the floors below have all disintegrated to dust. There is equal reaction to action, so it is impossible that floors above break floors below and continue breaking them up to the ground level. If the floors below disintegrate, then the floors above also disintegrate.

There are photos and videos of the collapse. Both may be false, but they are presented by the official story as authentic, so let us assume they are authentic. In these photos heavy material is pushed sideways and even up. It cannot happen in a gravitation collapse. Gravitation pulls things down only. No fires damaged the lower floors, they should have pancaked because of being hit by floors above, but as said, pancaking either gives a stack of floors or all disintegrate to dust and the collapse stops. The former case did not happen, no stack of floors was found.

There were high explosives and thermite, maybe as nanothermite. The building was wired for demolition before the event. A Mossad team arrived to the place before the plane came, the dancing Palestinians. Something hit the buildings, maybe planes, maybe drones with missiles. Later the buildings were pulled in a bit unconventional way. Doors to the roof were blocked for a better effect and more dead. A passport of a Muslim hijacker was conveniently found, so the news knew immediately who did it. Osama bin Laden first denied having done the attack. Then the USA went to destroy Iraq, which had irritated a country in the region. Something like this happened.

I will not post any diplomas on a forum. Take my word on this: High School 1976, ave 9.7/10, conscript 1976-77, Started studies Fall 1977 in the University of Helsinki (UH math). and in Helsinki Univ. Techn (HUT EE). Diplomas: BS Nov 1979 from UH, MS Dec 1979 from UH grade: eximia, MS EE Feb 1981 HUT with honors, that is 2.5 years for two master degrees. Phil.Lis,(=PhD 3.cycle) 1985 from UH, Doctor of Phil.(PhD) 1988 from UH, Docent (=habilitation, adj.prof) HUT 1997, Docent NDU 2011. Professor for 13 years in three universities in communication and military technology. 10 years of research/development outside academia. 10 years prof. in the defence forces. This should be enough to equal any ex-navy guy who got a degree in Philosophy and stopped before making a PhD and calls others wackadoodles.

j2 , July 6, 2018 at 10:22 am GMT
@Wizard of Oz

Wizard writes:
"Well, if the explanation for the second tower to be hit coming down first was amended to note that there was the weight of many more floors above the point of impact would you still use the word "idiotic"? How otherwise do you explain the timing? I presume you don't think each plane hit at exactly the levels which some plotters had relied on????"

The timing of a controlled demolition is determined by the person pressing the button. It does not need any technical explanation.

I discard the gravitational fall theory for a number of reasons. Here are three, but there are more:
1) the extremely temperatures long time after 9/11. I remember well when these were told in the news in my country, it was long before any 911Truthers proposed controlled demolition. High temperatures long after the event are best explained by very high temperatures just after the event, which suggests thermite, or something similar causing very high temperatures, 3000 Celsius or so.
2) Throwing material sideways and up is impossible for gravitation. The videos and photos may be falsified, but if so, they were falsified by the ones proposing the official explanation. The collapse in the videos does not at all resemble a gravitational fall, which you can see e.g. in icebergs.
3) The pancaking theory is false. I did read the paper by Bazant and a student. The equations are fine, the values set to them are not fine. I agree with 911Truthers concerning Bazant's article.

I do not indeed think the planes hit exactly on planned places, I also do not think the planes caused the collapse. I also find your suggestion for timing very odd: if fires had weakened the steel and that caused the collapse of one floor, then it is completely irrelevant how many stores were above the level. The time would be determined by the time to heat the steel to the point that is loses strength. The time would likely be different in different towers, but mainly because isolation material would be differently thorn, the fuel would be in different places and so on. The weight above the floor would not much matter since before the collapse the structure can keep it up, and if the temperature rises enough then it cannot. Fire can bring down a building, but the way it came down looks very suspicious. It looks like a fountain throwing material up.

I would still use the word "idiotic" for any suggestion that the fall was by gravitation. I would also use the same word for your elaboration of the suggestion by the timing consideration, though in some other topics I acknowledge the reason and knowledge in your comments. And I especially liked the news that one hijacker's passport landed on the ground so nicely and that Mossad had a team videoing the event before the plane hit the tower. Both things are so typical for a gravitational collapse but only in the USA.

j2 , July 6, 2018 at 1:32 pm GMT
@Wizard of Oz

Wizard wrote:
"I don't suppose there is any area of science or engineering where I can claim more to you but I do know enough to prep an expert witness and I am not convinced you can justify your denial that an extra 1000 tons or so on top of a weakened area would be unrelated to time taken for collapse. Let me put it this way: if the steel structures which had to cease supporting the building above had reached through heat a point where it had lost 75 per cent of the original strength maybe 2 X tons of potential energy would be needed to cause collapse whereas only X tons would be needed if, through further heating, 90 per cent had been lost."

You might well convince the jury in a court room, but I do not think engineers would buy this argument, because they would naturally agree with what you said but then they would continue to estimate the time between these two events. If you get the steel bars to 400 Celsius, when it still has not lost any of its strength, it will not take long to get it to 650 Celsius when half of the strength has gone. Try heating lead, it is the easiest metal to try at home. For a long time nothing happens, but when lead starts to soften it very soon melts.

The trick is to get those steelbars to 425 Celsius when they start to soften. To get them so hot you need a major fire in the building lasting for a long time, but once you already have this major fire, the temperature of the steel easily rises close to 1000 Celsius, which is the burning temperature of jet fuel and office fires. Why would it not rise, if it rose so high?

That is, normally you do not get steelbars to 400 Celsius because heat escapes by conduction and radiation , but if you got the conditions that put in heat in faster than it gets out (it is hot everywhere, heat cannot escape), the temperature of the steel will rise very fast. Think about the lead example. It takes a long time to get it to soften, since the heat conducts to the whole piece. You have to rise the temperature of all your lead to the softening point, but then it is all hot and heat cannot escape to cooler places, so it fast gets hotter.

Wizard of Oz , July 6, 2018 at 2:51 pm GMT
@j2

Thank you witness

j2 , July 6, 2018 at 2:51 pm GMT
@Wizard of Oz

Or let me put it another way. 911Truthers say (I have not check, but nobody has denied) that only 4 steel frame skyscrapers in all times have collapsed because of fire (3 in 9/11 and one in Brazil 2018) and many of these buildings burned long. It means that the steel frame in the other buildings never softened, did not reach 500-700 Celsius, because heating steel the heat escapes unless the beams are very thin. You get a heat gradient, but if you put in less heat than can escape.

It is like pouring water to a bowl with a hole in the bottom. If you pour less than can go out, it just does not fill. But if you pour faster, then the water level rises and it rises quite fast. So, you need a major fire to get the steel to 425 Celsius when it starts to soften, but if you get it there, you must be putting in more heat than can go out and therefore the steel temperature will rise fast to the temperature of your fire. There should not be much time between steel starting to soften and steel losing 50% of its strength.

There are measurements that the steel in WTC buildings did not get to high enough temperatures to lose enough strength. But my main argument was that what determines how high the steel temperature goes is how badly thorn is heat isolation and how big are the fires. These things should have been different in the towers and they do not depend on how many stores were above the plane (or something).

There are too many things wrong with the official 9/11 story. It cannot be defended outside a kangaroo court.

[Jul 08, 2018] A 29-year-old clerical employee in the Escondido City Manager's Office was forced out of his job this week after city officials learned he operates an anti-Semitic website and is active in a movement that blames Jews for the 9/11 terror attacks

Jul 08, 2018 | www.unz.com

KA , September 13, 2015 at 2:06 am GMT

Ex-city worker runs anti-Semitic website
Man quits Escondido job after being told be fired or resign

By J. Harry Jones | 6:05 p.m. Sept. 10, 2015

ESCONDIDO -- A 29-year-old clerical employee in the Escondido City Manager's Office was forced out of his job this week after city officials learned he operates an anti-Semitic website and is active in a movement that blames Jews for the 9/11 terror attacks. --

City officials said they were unaware at the time that Friend is an outspoken blogger and contributor to several white supremacist publications. --

"(I thought) it was inevitable that my political and historical views would become known to the city," he said in an email to the Union-Tribune. "I thought that their knowledge of my writing, publishing, and speaking activities, as well as the political and historical perspective I openly espouse, would ultimately result in my termination."

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2015/sep/10/escondido-fired-city-manager-office-anti-Semitic/

FREEDOM OF SPEECH gets a different accent I guess depending on the contents

[May 26, 2018] Creative Chaos by David Lorimer

9/11 remains a problem for the legitimacy of the Neocons and the US political elite in general. But like with JFK assassination they hope to weather the storm. And not without reason. The power of MSM almost guarantee that.
Notable quotes:
"... So far as the Twin Towers are concerned, their core consisted of 287 steel columns, and steel does not begin to melt until 2,770°F, while fires caused by kerosene can only rise to around 1,700°F. The Twin Towers collapsed at virtually free fall speed, as did WTC 7, which was not hit by an aeroplane, a fact that was not even mentioned by the 9/11 Commission. ..."
"... in the view of a former NIST employee, 'reached a predetermined conclusion by ignoring, dismissing and denying the evidence.' In other words, the official account – and all the more so in the case of Building 7 with 82 steel columns – is a lie. ..."
May 26, 2018 | www.unz.com

Creative chaos is an interesting concept by itself. In modern socity persention of event is moderated by MSM and, especially TV coverage. That create Matrix style soituation, when power that be can control narrative, no matter how unscientific it is and how many hole it contain. Somebody clled the USA the "society of illusions" and that nickname reflects this reality.

Review of David Ray Griffin, Bush and Cheney: How They Ruined America and the World (Olive Branch Press, 2017, 398 pp.)
published in Paradigm Explorer: The Scientific & Medical Network (London, 2018/2)

This brilliant, meticulous and searing analysis is David Ray Griffin's most powerful and important book about 
the hegemonic foreign policy ambitions 
of US neoconservatives and the way in which 9/11 was used to pursue these Machiavellian ends. This is a book that should have been written by a mainstream investigative journalist, but David has done their work for them, which they have signally failed to do by accepting the 9/11 Commission claims and labelling those who questioned these as 'conspiracy theorists', a term originally devised by the CIA to use against their opponents when the position of plausible deniability in undercover operations was under threat. The book is widely endorsed, for instance by Professor Daniel Sheehan, who remarks that it is 'a clear and non-sensationalist presentation of the historical and scientific facts, by one of our generation's most cogent thinkers. This book should convince any honest and objective person – with a political and scientific IQ above room temperature – that we have been systematically lied to about the events of 9/11 and the American invasions in the Middle East.' Seasoned readers of this journal will recall that I have reviewed all of David's books on 9/11 – here he summarises his case in the context of the foreign-policy background, with the first part devoted to this, and the second to a concise discussion of the shortcomings of official explanations of 9/11.

The failure to prevent 9/11 attack was
 in itself a massive intelligence disaster, and may partly be explained by some of the background elaborated in this book. The aftermath of 1989 and the fall of the Soviet Union left the US in a unipolar geopolitical position and without any clear enemy. The war on terror declared in the wake of 9/11 gave rise a new enemy and justified further increases in military expenditure on 'security' grounds. During the 1990s, neoconservative thinkers had urged the US to consolidate its status as an unchallenged superpower and, where deemed necessary in terms of its strategic interests, to act unilaterally to establish a Pax Americana. This injunction was reinforced by the doctrine of American exceptionalism, only recently reiterated by the incoming Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, and also espoused by John Bolton, the newly appointed National Security Adviser. As a 'benign' power, the US has the right to intervene where it sees fit; other countries such as Russia may be equally unique, but they are not 'exceptional'.

In 1997, William Kristol founded the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) with a call to shape this new century in a way favourable to American principles and interests. In September 2000, PNAC published a document called Rebuilding America's Defences where they advocated the use of US military supremacy to establish an empire including the whole world – hence 'the next president of the United States must increase military spending to preserve American geopolitical leadership.' This aim should be understood in the Pentagon context of achieving Full Spectrum Dominance, a policy already developed in the 1990s. Chillingly, the document reflected that the process of transformation might be a slow one in the absence of 'some catastrophic and catalysing event – like a new Pearl Harbour' – 9/11 was this event and enabled a fast track of neoconservative policies, beginning with the attack on Afghanistan that had actually been planned many months previously, and the destructive consequences of which are spelt out in detail. It should be noted that Dick Cheney has been a leading figure in the neoconservative movement, and
 it would be more accurate to describe the Bush – Cheney administration as the Cheney – Bush administration, at least in the first term.

The chapter on military spending, pre-emptive war and regime change is an eye-opener. The idea of pre-emptive-preventive war came to be known as the Bush Doctrine, elaborated in a 2002 national security strategy document with the dangerous clause that America can in self-defence 'act against such emerging threats before they are fully formed' – I will come back to this below when discussing drones. Challenging regimes hostile to US interests meant overthrowing them and replacing them, and the 2002 list ominously included Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia and Sudan. The events of the last 15 years show how dangerous it is in terms 
of unintended consequences to sow a
 wind without reaping a whirlwind: the emergence of ISIS as a result of the invasion of Iraq is just one example.

This document was written by Philip Zelikow, who would later be named the executive director of the 9/11 commission.

The next chapter is a detailed analysis of the Iraq war and the propaganda campaign of lies required to justify it, both in the 
US and the UK. David refers to meetings by Sir Richard Dearlove, head of MI6, with members of the Bush administration and CIA director George Tenet. Dearlove remarked that 'the intelligence and facts are being fixed around the policy', which was also the case in the UK with the so-called dodgy dossier. Amazingly, a 2008 report by the Centre for Public Integrity enumerates as many as 935 false statements made by members of the Bush administration
 in the two years following 9/11. David itemises a few of these with reference to weapons of mass destruction as well as biological and chemical weapons. During this time, the Joint Chiefs of Staff produced a much more cautious assessment, which was set aside. In addition, (p. 61) CIA analysts felt pressured by Dick Cheney to make their assessments fit with the Bush administration's policy objectives, which dictated the conclusions their analyses should yield. The consequences of the Iraq war are well-known and include 
an estimated 2.3 million Iraqi deaths, 4,500 American deaths and hundreds of thousands of serious injuries, including 320,000 brain injuries. As to the economic cost, this had reached $4 trillion by 2014, a devastating opportunity cost in terms of what the money might have been spent on. It should also be noted that the contract for rebuilding Iraqi infrastructure went
 to Halliburton, of which Dick Cheney
 is a major shareholder and former chief executive officer.

Space does not permit a detailed discussion of all the global chaos brought about by US interventions in the Middle East
 on the basis that it could solve all of its problems by means of military power. Chaotic collapse was regarded as a form of 'creative destruction' providing a basis for destabilising a regime and eventually removing the incumbent, especially in this geopolitically significant area for oil and gas (p. 109). David discusses Libya, showing how the same kinds of lies were used to bring about regime change there, then he moves on to Syria, where the intractable disaster is ongoing, as we all know. In addition to military factors, it may also be a case that a form of weather warfare was used (this is not suggested in the book) to help create the drought as a key destabilising factor; in either event, whether deliberate or due to climate change, the drought was significant. In Syria, out of the pre-war population of 22 million, 11% have been killed or injured, 
5 million have fled the country and a further 8 million are internally displaced. In addition, as we know, this chaos also led to the refugee crisis that precipitated the Brexit vote.

David devotes a separate chapter to
 drone warfare, posing and responding 
to a number of key questions: are drone killings acceptable? Are they de facto assassination? Do drone strikes rarely kill civilians? Are drone strikes used only when capture is impossible? Are drone strikes used only for imminent threats? Do drone strikes help defeat terrorism? Don't drones at least keep American warriors safe? There is no good case to be made for drone warfare extrajudicial killing in the name of 'self-defence'; sometimes 'signature strikes' were employed and continued on a large scale during the Obama administration. The justification is tortuous to say the 
least where 'an imminent threat of violent attack does not require the US to have clear evidence that a specific attack on US persons will take place in the immediate future' (p. 146). This is a 'more flexible' understanding of imminence which 'defines the term in a way that excludes its only actual meaning' (!).

The chapter on shredding the Constitution makes depressing reading where 'unaccountable executive power has replaced due process and the checks and balances established by the US constitution', first embodied in the Patriot Act. David systematically shows how various amendments to the Constitution have been violated: the first on freedom of speech and assembly, the fourth on security against unreasonable searches and seizures, and the fifth relating to deprivation of life, liberty or property without due process of law. In addition, torture violates the Constitution, and
 the overall result has been an undoing of democracy in the name of security – an Orwellian outcome.

After chapters on potential nuclear and ecological holocaust (the latter the subject of one of David's previous books – Unprecedented ), he moves on to a summary analysis of the events of 9/11 and its aftermath. Here he condenses the findings of his previous books to show how numerous miracles, defined as violations of the laws of nature, were necessary in order to sustain the 9/11 Commission's official explanation. He shows how the choice of Philip Zelikow as Executive Director of this supposedly impartial and independent commission was in fact an insider selection leading to a foregone structure and conclusion and tight control on individual commissioners. As early as March 2003, prior to the first meeting of the commission, Zelikow had prepared a detailed outline including chapter headings, subheadings and sub sub-headings. The pre-ordained task was to explain how the building had been brought down by fire and the impact of the airliners.

So far as the Twin Towers are concerned, their core consisted of 287 steel columns, and steel does not begin to melt until 2,770°F, while fires caused by kerosene can only rise to around 1,700°F. The Twin Towers collapsed at virtually free fall speed, as did WTC 7, which was not hit by an aeroplane, a fact that was not even mentioned by the 9/11 Commission.

The official reports on WTC 7 and the Twin Towers were provided by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), which was an agency of the Bush-Cheney administration. Its reports are more political than scientific as it is a fact of physics that a steel frame building can only come down essentially in freefall if all the core columns are severed simultaneously by explosives – in the case of Building 7, the roofline remained virtually horizontal throughout the sudden collapse. Readers can consult comparative videos for themselves showing an example of controlled demolition compared with the destruction of Building 7. In addition, massive sections of steel columns and beams were horizontally ejected from the Twin Towers up to 650 feet, which is quite inconsistent with the vertical effects of gravitational collapse. David summarises six miracles required by the official explanation that, in the view of a former NIST employee, 'reached a predetermined conclusion by ignoring, dismissing and denying the evidence.' In other words, the official account – and all the more so in the case of Building 7 with 82 steel columns – is a lie.

In his conclusion and after further short chapters on the Pentagon attack and Mohamed Atta, David lists 15 miracles required by the official 9/11 commission explanation. He asks why mainstream media have not properly examined the evidence, and one significant factor already mentioned is the fear of being labelled a 'conspiracy theorist', implying credulity, gullibility and irrationality. In the case of David Ray Griffin, nothing could be further from the truth: his analysis is thorough and forensic. He explains how the CIA invented this conspiracy theory tactic in 1964 in the wake of the Warren Report into the Kennedy assassination. It has become a powerful and intimidating rhetorical device, especially for journalists who pride themselves on their scepticism
 and objectivity.

Rather than follow the a priori argument that no government could be evil or competent enough to cover up 9/11, David urges people to look at the empirical evidence – and if you, the reader, are feeling similarly uncomfortable, I encourage you to read this book and his other ones for yourself and to understand the logic of false flag operations that can be attributed to opponents by means of a suitable propaganda campaign. So far as 9/11 is concerned, there is a large body of informed and expert professional opinion across various disciplines that has studied the evidence and concluded that the official account is false – see also the 9/11 Consensus Panel, the results of which was soon be published in 9/11 Unmasked: A Six-Year Investigation by an International Review Panel . This book is a highly significant contribution to exposing the Big Lie of 9/11 and the neoconservative foreign policy background, and is as such a passionate plea for mainstream media exposure to put a stop to further Machiavellian ambitions for full spectrum dominance of the world.

[Apr 19, 2018] Few Saudis and 9-11: Wolfowitz al Saud, Zelikow al Saud, Feith al Saud, Wurmsers al Saud, Libby al Saud, Zakheim al Saud, Chertoff al Saud. Just a very few.

Apr 19, 2018 | www.unz.com

Eric Zuesse , April 19, 2018 at 1:24 am GMT

@NoseytheDuke

According to Wikipedia's article on him, Larry Silverstein built 7 World Trade Center, then in January 2001 bought the entire WTC complex from the Port Authority of NY & NJ, then "After a protracted dispute with insurers over the amount of coverage available for rebuilding World Trade Center buildings 1, 2, 4 and 5, a series of court decisions determined that a maximum of $4.55 billion was payable and settlements were reached with the insurers in 2007.[21]" It says nothing about his receipt of funds from the collapse of #7, which was surely a controlled demolition that he ordered, so that he had to have known in advance and planned for the 9/11 attacks -- on the taller buildings, 1 & 2. But foreknowledge doesn't necessarily mean that he planned the 9/11 attacks, nor that he financed them -- far less that the Mossad did the attacks.

If the 19 fanatical Sunnis who did 9/11 did it, and some people (such as here) think that Israel financed them, or ordered them, then people can believe anything, but mere foreknowledge doesn't necessarily mean causation. All of the actual evidence, thus far released, indicates that the Sauds, working with George W. Bush, planned the attacks, but that Bush demanded deniability and therefore instructed Condoleezza Rice not to let George Tenet in during the final days to tell him the details so that action to prevent it would be able to be taken.

If you google just the three words (no quotation-marks) "zuesse sauds 9/11″ you can see the articles, which link through to the base evidence, all of which implicates the Sauds, and none of which implicates Israel (though my linked article on Israel as the hypothesis does discuss and demolish 'evidence' that Israel did it).

NoseytheDuke , April 19, 2018 at 12:29 am GMT
@Eric Zuesse

Sir, You are shredding your own credibility here. The more anyone looks into the lead up to 9/11 and the events following, the more one has to conclude that Israel was behind it. Sure, there were others who played minor roles but you can only see things as you say you do by selectively excluding certain incriminating facts because taken all together, Israel did it.

A cursory understanding of physics reveals the truth of the statement in that short video clip that if one building was wired for demolition, all three were. This was a large, costly and sophisticated undertaking so who had access? Who supervised the security of the buildings? How many of the names one comes across suddenly abandoned homes and businesses and returned to Israel after the event? Who was able to quash earlier, more accurate reports and organise the media chorus of the fake narrative in time for the evening news broadcasts? The list is long indeed, I have listed but a small fraction of indicators that Israel did indeed do it.

I look forward to your response.

bjondo , April 19, 2018 at 2:06 am GMT
@Eric Zuesse

Get serious.

You are an agent to deceive.

Bush demanded deniability

Did you make this up while on the toilet or while keyboarding your UNZ BS?

W was the one NOT in the loop. Too dumb to trust. The yehudi Saudis do what they are told.

The evidence implicating the Sauds would consist of lies. Like the 'evidence' implicating Assad to chemical attacks if such even occur.

Few Saudis and 9-11: Wolfowitz al Saud, Zelikow al Saud, Feith al Saud, Wurmsers al Saud, Libby al Saud, Zakheim al Saud, Chertoff al Saud. Just a very few.

[Mar 20, 2018] IIRC, the Anthrax show was seen [from my viewpoint = external], as akin to sending out a sheep-dog to shepherd the outliers = oppress any 'casual dissidents' to get everybody onto the same page = GWoT, 1st step to invade Afghanistan in order to rearrange some sand.

Mar 20, 2018 | www.unz.com

skrik , Next New Comment March 20, 2018 at 8:59 pm GMT

@El Dato

9/11 was less important than the Anthrax show thereafter

¿Qué?

IIRC, the Anthrax show was seen [from my viewpoint = external], as akin to sending out a sheep-dog to shepherd the outliers = oppress any 'casual dissidents' = get everybody onto the same page = GWoT, 1st step = invade Afghanistan = rearrange some sand. The latter more than a bit puzzling, since Afghanistan was not the likeliest place to want to go, to punish any alleged hijackers. To add 'interest,' it was fairly quickly revealed that the Anthrax was a 'domestic' strain = US-produced. Then they hounded Ivins to death, but that was *much* later. At the time = 2001, there was almost no '9/11 inside-job' discussion -- except for the Anthrax. A different puzzling. What did I miss? rgds

El Dato , Next New Comment March 20, 2018 at 10:36 pm GMT

@skrik

Without the Anthrax (which, was not "weaponised" btw), there would not have been a case for Iraq war and Powell showing vials at the UN nor the Patriot Act and assorted other totalitarian retardations. One could have looked into the Saudis-finagled-it angle, into the Israel-knew-about-it angle, into the FBI dropped the ball-years-before angle , into too-convenient-for-PNACistas-angle, into-we-found-the-passports-but-we-didnt-find-the-flight-recorders angle. And maybe Shrubby wouldn't even have been re-elected. Before Anthrax, it was just "an attack on the WTC" – there had been one of those via the parking garage a couple of years earlier btw, by the same team. But after Anthrax, hysteria took hold. And everyone was taking Cipro.

This timeline alleges that people were even taking Cipro before 9/11 (don't take antibiotica until you absolutely, totally, must, idiots – maybe they look too much at Dark Winter: http://washingtonsblog.com/2014/10/anthrax-dark-winter.html ):

https://wikispooks.com/wiki/2001_Anthrax_attacks/Timeline

[Mar 14, 2018] I think it's possible that the most idiotic conspiracy theorists are flocking to alternative websites that are dissenting from The Narrative. The Unz Review (probably also RT and other sites) is an obvious candidate for such spontaneous activity. But yes, there's a possibility that some conscious effort is made to make these websites look bad.

Mar 14, 2018 | www.unz.com

reiner Tor , October 6, 2017 at 5:40 pm GMT

@ussr andy

There is one way this could all happen naturally: I think it's possible that the most idiotic conspiracy theorists are flocking to alternative websites that are dissenting from The Narrative. The Unz Review (probably also RT and other sites) is an obvious candidate for such spontaneous activity. But yes, there's a possibility that some conscious effort is made to make these websites look bad.

One interesting thing I noticed is that some 8-10 years ago I spent a lot of time debating 911 truthers. I found a number of websites dedicated to debunking conspiracy theories. The strange thing is, just a couple of years ago, I tried to search for some information on 911, and basically it appeared from Google and YouTube searches as if the debunking (anti-truther) websites have greatly decreased in visibility. I needed to do targeted searches on them (and even so, the results always contained a large number of the truther websites or videos) to find them. I once debated a "moderate" 911 truther guy. He basically believed most of the official narrative (i.e. that Osama did it), except he thought either that Osama was a CIA agent or patsy or that at least he was allowed to proceed by TPTB. He thought that the idiotic conspiracy theories (the "controlled demolition" crowd or the more extreme "the planes were holograms") were actually spread by the CIA (or some other similar organization) in order to crowd out the more intelligent questions about the event. Basically, most people think that either the official narrative is true to a dot or it's a controlled demolition. Now I happen to more or less believe the official narrative on 911, but it was an interesting thought, and could be applied to other things.

iffen , October 6, 2017 at 7:56 pm GMT
@reiner Tor

It is interesting to think about. There are many unknowns. How many people just visit and read the articles without paying attention to the comments? (Of course we have quite a few above the fold articles that match or exceed the bizarreness of the comments). I check several sites and have never even read the comments at most of them. I only read a few of the contributors at Unz and regularly comment at fewer still. I am impressed by many of the knowledgeable comments that can be found here. One has to wade through quite a bit of muck to get to the worthwhile stuff. (I am sure some feel the same about some of my comments, especially when I am down in the muck wrestling with the pigs.)

Back to the particulars of your comment. Would the CIA be interested in sowing distrust of alternative media and limiting its distribution and influence? I can see where they would have an interest. As in, if everyone had complete trust in someone, say like Uncle Walter, then it would be simple enough to see that Uncle Walter got the material that you wanted him to have. If we have anarchy in the media and the populace's trust is all over the place then peddling the influence that you want would be complicated. You couldn't just drop a Tonkin Gulf incident into the hopper and get the predictable results that you used to be able to get with minimal effort.

Just in case they have their eye on you and your interlocutors, I'm putting my hat back on.

Bobjil , October 14, 2017 at 12:23 pm GMT
@reiner Tor

Read "Solving 911″ by Christopher Bollyn. It gives very good details and names about the who and why of 911. Buildings falling in their footprints, thin skinned passenger planes going through thick steel framed towers (3 of them), passport of "hijacker" in the dust -- obviously we are not getting the full picture in our MSM.

[Feb 17, 2018] Yet another version of build 7 collapse

Notable quotes:
"... CIA had previously planted demolition explosives in the building because prior to september 11th, terrorists tried to use a bus loaded with TNT to bring the building down. So the CIA placed demotion charges in order to bring the building down in case the terrorists succeed in the future. The CIA was correct this time, the Terrorists did succeed and the building was "pulled" together with building 7 ..."
"... While your theory on what happened on 9/11 is slightly more credible than the story the corporate media are telling (at least it explains the collapse of the buildings correctly), it doesn't answer some other questions the "inside job" theory (which I consider by far the most likely) can answer. ..."
Feb 17, 2018 | russia-insider.com

Gerry Hiles Stop Bush and Clinton , February 16, 2018 2:56 AM

Abandon hope all ye who enter here ... or at least make the mistake of reading anything written by someone who still believes the fairy/demonic tale/official conspiracy theory about 9/11. I don't know why RI bothers to publish this kind of BS, including the myth that the CIA and FBI were once "honourable".
.
FFS I was only a boy during the 40s and 50s, but I remember the Dulles brothers as being sinister and for all that Ike ended up warning about the MIC, it was common knowledge that he was a war criminal. Oh and not forgetting J Edgar Hoover!! What a pillar of virtue!! Then along came G H W Bush as a CIA president, not forgetting such CIA puppets as Johnson and Ford. Anyone who imagines that 9/11 marked some radical change is delusional and, knowingly or not, a deep state/Rothschild mouthpiece, gate-keeper at best.

Stop Bush and Clinton Gerry Hiles , February 16, 2018 5:38 AM

It's not like 9/11 was even a new plan -- they had pretty much the same idea before (Operation Northwoods), but that one was shot down by JFK - second to last president who wasn't pure evil (the last being Carter who I think was mostly benign but not very capable, and certainly trusting some really bad advisers).

9/11 is probably the biggest false flag event they actually managed to pull off - but by no means the first of its kind.

John Tosh Stop Bush and Clinton , February 15, 2018 3:56 PM

If you refer to September 11, you are wrong. I can give you the full story. This is the truth.

1. Terrorists planned to bomb the World Trade Center, it was not an inside Job

2. CIA had previously planted demolition explosives in the building because prior to september 11th, terrorists tried to use a bus loaded with TNT to bring the building down. So the CIA placed demotion charges in order to bring the building down in case the terrorists succeed in the future. The CIA was correct this time, the Terrorists did succeed and the building was "pulled" together with building 7

3. The 3,000 or so people who died were the result of error in timing between the CIA pulling the WTC buildings and notifying the fire-fighters via radios to evacuate. Hence the CIA is responsible for killing those 3,000 Americans. They pulled the building too quick while New York fire fighters had the wrong radios ... something about the frequencies used.

Here is the future, it has not happened yet:

New York will be blown up with an ICBM (3 actually). Most Eastern coasts like Florida, South Carolina etc will be covered up with a large wave or Tsunami. I am not sure what causes the Tsunami it could be underwater volcanoes, underwater Nuclear detonation or even rocks falling from space. The US will be a place of hunger and starvation with dirty filty people roving from place to place in search of food and necessities. Sky scrapers would be dark with no electricity with people burning whatever they find to create heat on different floors with missing windows. It would look like a page out of a movie.

Everyday, I hope I am wrong but things are progressing in that direction. I do not know when. There is no clock or calendar to look at and know the date these things would happen.

Gerry Hiles John Tosh , February 16, 2018 3:32 AM

So you believe that 19 Arab non-pilots hijacked four civilian airliners? What are you smoking? Have you no idea what it takes to pilot even a light plane? One of the purported "terrorists" couldn't even do that.

The planes were probably drones (i.e. remotely controlled). One hit WTC1, another hit WTC2, another (perhaps intended for WTC7) possibly crashed somewhere near Shanksville (but not at the reported site) and a cruise missile probably hit the Pentagon. In fact only two planes are reasonably accounted for. (I cannot believe in "no plane" theories.)

Are you covering for the Israelis arrested on 9/11? Are you covert Mossad/CIA? Or just incredibly naïve? What is your motive for your story? First time I've heard such nonsense btw ... and I got involved with A & E and Pilots for 9/11 Truth many years ago, let alone plenty of other research, including that weird Judy Woods. In brief: I've looked at every angle from at least fifteen years ago and I have never come across your improbable story. How did you make it up, e.g. about fire-fighters having "the wrong radios". That's bizarre. I was in a fire brigade, that sort of thing does not happen.

If your prophecy partly comes true, either it will be another, even bigger "inside job", or more likely that the psychopaths in Washington DC decide to attack Russia and Russia retaliates, as promised. Btw nothing could cause a tsunami big enough to engulf most of the East Coast ... well maybe a really major tectonic shift, but that'd be the West Coast, not the East. Get a grip, have a look at plate tectonics. Sure, almost, things are going to get really bad, but "just" a major economic collapse would make the US "go dark" and even more violent than it already is.

John Tosh Gerry Hiles , February 16, 2018 6:49 AM

Unfortunately the truth is simple. Yes a bunch of boys planned to strike at the heart of American economic power got financing from a middle eastern financier and took on American Economic power.

One of the hi-jackers miscalculated and the passengers took over and crashed the plane outside its designated target. They were going to destroy the White House!

No this was an example of the sorry state of American intelligence services, even the Israelis had useless pieces of the information but did not know how they interconnected until the very end.

The CIA works hand in hand with British Intelligence and Israeli Intelligence. What each knows the other knows.

THIS IS NOT AN INSIDE JOB. Just shows how useless the CIA really is.

Flight schools were everywhere in the West. The terrorists were taught how to fly not how to land the aircraft. They were taught exactly what they needed to crash the aircrafts into their targets. They were not real pilots.

You should realize the truth is simple. We had a useless and still have a useless security agency called the CIA. Useless and only good at killing not only innocent Americans but globally killing innocent people.

Do not worry when they have the trials on TV, you will see the truth for yourself.

Stop Bush and Clinton John Tosh , February 15, 2018 5:39 PM

Do you have any proof?

While your theory on what happened on 9/11 is slightly more credible than the story the corporate media are telling (at least it explains the collapse of the buildings correctly), it doesn't answer some other questions the "inside job" theory (which I consider by far the most likely) can answer.

If your theory is correct:

  1. Why did Bush lie about seeing the plane hitting the first tower before going to the classroom?
  2. What happened at the Pentagon? Why did a terrorist choose to fly the plane around the building to hit the hardest to hit spot (which didn't do much damage because of construction work) when it would have been much easier to hit a high-value target such as Rumsfeld's office?
  3. Why did they blow up building 7, which not even the official lies claim was under a "terrorist" attack? (My answer of that is that the plane that crashed over Shanksville was intended to hit WTC7, and they were unprepared for that plane not pulling off its mission)
  4. Why did NORAD not intercept the "terrorist" planes?
  5. Why did the defensive rockets around the Pentagon not fire?
  6. Who placed the obviously fake evidence such as the magical passports that don't burn, and why?
  7. What were the dancing Israelis doing? Celebrating the deeds of Arabic (and therefore anti-Israel) terrorists?
  8. If so many people messed up, why was nobody fired or demoted? (On the other hand, if it was an inside job, of course they would be rewarded for a job well done...)
  9. Why did Silverstein buy more insurance just in time?

Also, regarding your points...

1. See above...
2. Makes some sense if you look at it from a damage control perspective, but:
- Would anyone really risk that? Imagine a terrorist finding out the explosives are already there and all that's needed is a trigger!
- What was done to make sure those explosives wouldn't blow up the building if some accident (office fire or so) happened?
- Why the coverup?
3. If they were that incompetent, why did nobody get fired or demoted?

Gerry Hiles Stop Bush and Clinton , February 16, 2018 3:41 AM

John Tosh's story is nonsense. I doubt that he has ever done any research, or maybe he is very young and has only picked up a few fragments during the last year or so, then spun them into his own fanciful story. Between about 2003 and 2014 I looked into things extensively. I remain a member of both A&E and Pilots for 9/11 Truth, but I've given up bothering ... not least because of people like John Tosh, but in fact the vast majority of US citizens, who will always believe their "gubbermint", or who are just apathetic, or too thick to ever think for themselves.

John Tosh Gerry Hiles , February 16, 2018 11:36 AM

Sorry the truth does not fit what you wanted. If you really want to go after the CIA you cannot use lies. The fact is this; the CIA incompetence killed New York fire fighters.

John Tosh Stop Bush and Clinton , February 15, 2018 6:07 PM

Again this is the truth. It was NOT an inside job. Yes the CIA is useless and not very good at their job. Also Bush was not a good leader, drank too much and was not running the country. The CIA and Bush's father were running the country at that time.

The statements above are the correct ones. Time will prove them right.

Edgar Cayce called such readings "Akashic record" Nostradamus called his looking into the "brass tripod" Its the same source of information. Maybe hundreds of years into the future we would create some kind of internet which can be accessed without mechanical implants without LCD screens and Earphones, maybe this is where the information is coming from, I do not know. I just report what I see.

Stop Bush and Clinton John Tosh , February 16, 2018 6:22 AM

Agreed about Bush and who was really running the country at the time -- but it being an inside job still is the only sane explanation for everything else (see my questions from before).

On the Internet, you can find the truth (e.g. http://ae911truth.org/ as well as pure lies, e.g. http://cnn.com/) -- maybe it's the same thing for your non-screen non-earphone non-implant internet.

Peter Paul 1950 John Tosh , February 15, 2018 5:20 PM

Sad, but quite true ... and we're moving too fast in that direction already ... we are mostly reduced to being passengers ... and AI is like switching over to auto-pilot ... I just saw the captain and the co-pilot running past me heading to the lou ... looking kind of sea-sick in the face ... the bags they were carrying looked suspicious ... more like parachutes ...

[Jan 02, 2018] We need demonstrations against NATO, against war, against false flag terrorism, against using terrorists as secret armies, against war propaganda!

Jan 02, 2018 | www.unz.com

Wizard of Oz , July 11, 2017 at 11:50 am GMT

@Paul Well, the real enemy of the people are the real terrorists behind the scenes. Those who planned the 9/11 false flag. Those who sent the Anthrax letters to resisting congress members. Those who pre-planned the wars of aggression in the whole middle east.

So any appeal to the "White House" is almost pointless since the White House is one element of the power structure captured by the war-criminal lunatics.

To change something people in the US should at first stop buying their war criminal lying mass media.

Then they should stop supporting ANY foreign intervention by the US and should stop believing any of the preposterous lies released by the media, the state dept., or any other neocon outlet.

Actually Trump was probably elected because he said he was anti-intervention and anti-media. But did it help?

The US needs mass resistance (demonstrations, strikes, boycotts, non-participation, sit-ins, grass-root information, or whatever) against their neocon/zionist/mafia/cia power groups or nothing will change.

We need demonstrations against NATO, against war, against false flag terrorism, against using terrorists as secret armies, against war propaganda!

B.t.w. Iran has always been one of the main goals. Think of it: Why did the US attack Afghanistan and Iraq? What have those two countries in common? (Hint: a look on the map helps to answer this question.) I am beginning to get interested in why some people are sure 9/11 was a false flag affair covered up by a lot of lies. So may I try my opening question on you. How much, if any of it, have you read of the official 9/11 commission report?

Replies:

@Sowhat

https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/former-nist-employee-speaks-out-on-wtc-investigation/

@NoseytheDuke

A better question: Have YOU read The Commission: The Uncensored History of the 9/11 Investigation by Phillip Shenon?

[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 evidence 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.

[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 registered 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?]

[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.

[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

[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.

[Jan 14, 2017] Position Statement in support of a new investigation into the total collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 on September 11, 2001

Sponsors: Daniel Barnum, FAIA and Fifty Members of the Institute

Intent: To adopt a Position Statement in support of a new investigation into the total collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 on September 11, 2001.

Text of Resolution

WHEREAS, according to the AIA Public Policies and Position Statements, architects are professionally obligated to use their knowledge, skill, and experience to engage in civic life; and

WHEREAS, World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC 7), a 47-story, steel-framed high-rise building, suffered a total collapse at 5:20 PM on the afternoon of September 11, 2001; and

WHEREAS, the cause of the collapse of WTC 7 has become the subject of vigorous public debate, such that establishing the true cause of the collapse
of WTC 7 is of great civic importance; and|

WHEREAS, the cause of the collapse of WTC 7 has become the subject of vigorous public debate, such that establishing the true cause of the collapse of WTC 7 is of great civic importance; and

WHEREAS, prior to and since September 11, 2001, no steel-framed high-rise building has ever suffered a total collapse, except buildings demolished through the procedure known as controlled demolition; and

WHEREAS, the collapse of WTC 7 exemplified many of the signature features of controlled demolition, including:

WHEREAS, first responders and bystanders reported explosions and other phenomena suggestive of controlled demolition immediately prior to and during the collapse of WTC 7, as exemplified in the following account by a first-year NYU medical student identified as "Darryl" on 1010 Wins Radio: "[W]e heard this sound that sounded like a clap of thunder. Turned around. We were shocked to see that the building was, uh Well, it looked like there was a shockwave ripping through the building and the windows all busted out. It was horrifying. And then about a second later the bottom floor caved out and the building followed after that"; and

WHEREAS, a CNN video captured both the sound of an explosion coming from WTC 7 and the following statements prior to the onset of the collapse:

Unidentified voice: "You hear that?"

Voice of emergency worker #1: "Keep your eye on that building. It'll be coming down soon."

Voice of emergency worker #2: "Building is about to blow up, move it back . We are walking back, there's a building about to blow up. Flame and debris coming down"; and

WHEREAS, numerous experts in controlled demolition and structural engineering have attested that the collapse of WTC 7 could have only been caused by controlled demolition, as exemplified in the following statement made by Dutch demolition expert Danny Jowenko after viewing video of the collapse: "This is controlled demolition . It's been imploded. It's a hired job, done by a team of experts"; and

WHEREAS, in spite of the fact that WTC 7 had only few, small, and scattered fires and modest structural damage, the NYC Office of Emergency Management and the New York Fire Department predicted the collapse of WTC 7 with extraordinary confidence and precision, deciding to establish a safety zone around WTC 7 early in the afternoon and waiting several hours in anticipation of the building's collapse; and

WHEREAS, local authorities were so certain of WTC 7's eventual collapse that anticipation of the collapse was widely reported in the media, as exemplified by MSNBC's Ashleigh Banfield, who reported, "I've heard several reports from several different officers now that that is the building that is gonna go down next. In fact, one officer told me they're just waiting for that to come down at this point" - and by the BBC, who erroneously began reporting the collapse 23 minutes before it actually occurred; and

WHEREAS, in spite of the fact that local authorities predicted the collapse of WTC 7 with extraordinary confidence and precision, investigators for the Building Performance Study, conducted by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), were "stunned" by the collapse of WTC 7 and concluded in May 2002: "The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence"; and

WHEREAS, three and a half years after the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) began its investigation into the World Trade Center disaster, NIST's lead investigator, Dr. Shyam Sunder, stated that NIST had some "preliminary hypotheses," but conceded, "[T]ruthfully, I don't really know. We've had trouble getting a handle on building No. 7"; and

WHEREAS, NIST finally concluded in its 2008 report that the collapse of WTC 7 was caused by "normal office fires," thus abandoning earlier hypotheses that diesel fuel fires or structural damage caused the collapse; and

WHEREAS, according to NIST, the fires that it alleges triggered the total collapse of WTC 7 burned at temperatures "hundreds of degrees below those typically considered in design practice for establishing structural fire resistance ratings"; and

WHEREAS, NIST neglected to examine steel from WTC 7 with a "Swiss cheese appearance" that had been attacked by molten iron - as documented in Appendix C of the FEMA/ASCE Building Performance Study - and instead falsely alleged that no identifiable steel was recovered from WTC 7; and

WHEREAS, in its draft report for public comment, NIST falsely denied that WTC 7 entered free fall, and then acknowledged the occurrence of free fall in its final report, but falsely alleged that the occurrence of free fall was consistent with its computer model, which, in fact, does not show a period of free fall, nor does it come close to replicating the observed collapse; and

WHEREAS, NIST's computer model omitted critical structural features of WTC 7, which, in the opinion of independent engineers, had they been included, the computer model would have shown that NIST's alleged collapse initiation mechanism had zero probability of occurring; and

WHEREAS, NIST has refused to release key portions of its modeling data to engineers studying the collapse of WTC 7, claiming that to do so "might jeopardize public safety"; and

WHEREAS, thousands of members of the architecture and engineering professions, including the 97 sponsors of this resolution, believe there is sufficient evidence contradicting NIST's explanation of the collapse of WTC 7 to warrant a new investigation.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the AIA Board of Directors shall commence the process to adopt a Position Statement, to be published in the AIA Directory of Public Policies and Position Statements, stating both:

 The AIA's belief that incidents involving the catastrophic failure of buildings and other structures must be investigated using the highest standards of science-based investigation and analysis; and

 The AIA's support for a new investigation into the total collapse of WTC 7.

[Nov 04, 2016] The 11th Anniversary of 9/11

Nov 04, 2016 | www.unz.com

Anon

October 25, 2016 at 9:25 pm GMT • 100 Words

The 11th Anniversary of 9/11 ~ Paul Craig Roberts
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2012/09/11/the-11th-anniversary-911-paul-craig-roberts/

9/11 and the Orwellian Redefinition of "Conspiracy Theory"
http://www.globalresearch.ca/9-11-and-the-orwellian-redefinition-of-conspiracy-theory/25339

9/11 After 13 years
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/09/10/911-13-years-paul-craig-roberts/

The Tide is Turning: The Official Story Is Now The Conspiracy Theory - Paul Craig Roberts
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2016/09/07/the-tide-is-turning-the-official-story-is-now-the-conspiracy-theory-paul-craig-roberts/

No Airliner Black Boxes Found at the World Trade Center? Senior Officials Dispute Official 9/11 Claim
http://www.globalresearch.ca/no-airliner-black-boxes-found-at-the-world-trade-center-senior-officials-dispute-official-911-claim/5400891

[Nov 04, 2016] 9-11 Truth - The Unz Review

Oct 25, 2016 | The Unz Review

For the first time a presidential candidate, admittedly from a fringe party, is calling for a reexamination of 9/11. Jill Stein of the Green Party has recognized that exercises in which the United States government examines its own behavior are certain to come up with a result that basically exonerates the politicians and the federal bureaucracy. This has been the case since the Warren Commission report on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, which, inter alia, failed to thoroughly investigate key players like Lee Harvey Oswald and Jack Ruby and came up with a single gunman scenario in spite of considerable evidence to the contrary.

When it comes to 9/11, I have been reluctant to enter the fray largely because I do not have the scientific and technical chops to seriously assess how buildings collapse or how a large passenger airliner might be completely consumed by a fire. In my own area, of expertise, which is intelligence, I have repeatedly noted that the Commission investigators failed to look into the potential foreign government involvement in the events that took place that day. Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan just for starters may have been involved in or had knowledge relating to 9/11 but the only investigation that took place, insofar as I can determine, was a perfunctory look at the possible Saudi role, the notorious 28 pages, which have recently been released in a redacted form.

A friend recently recommended that I take a look at a film on 9/11 that was first produced back in 2005. It is called Loose Change 9/11 and is available on Amazon Video or in DVD form as well as elsewhere in a number of updated versions. The first version reportedly provides the most coherent account, though the later updates certainly are worth watching, add significantly to the narrative, and are currently more accessible.

Loose Change is an examination of the inconsistencies in the standard 9/11 narrative, a subject that has been thoroughly poked and prodded in a number of other documentaries and books, but it benefits from the immediacy of the account and the fresh memories of the participants in the events who were interviewed by the documentary's director Dylan Avery starting in 2004. It also includes a bit of a history lesson for the average viewer, recalling Hitler's Reichstag fire, Pearl Harbor and the Gulf of Tonkin incident, all of which were essentially fraudulent and led to the assumption of emergency powers by the respective heads of state.

The underlying premise of most 9/11 revisionism is that the United States government, or at least parts of it, is capable of almost anything. Loose Change describes how leading hawkish Republicans were, as early as 2000, pushing to increase U.S. military capabilities so that the country would be able to fight multi-front wars. The signatories of the neocon Project for the New American Century paper observed that was needed was a catalyst to produce a public demand to "do something," that "something" being an event comparable to Pearl Harbor. Seventeen signatories of the document wound up in senior positions in the Bush Administration.

The new Pearl Harbor turned out to be 9/11. Given developments since 9/11 itself, to include the way the U.S. has persisted in going to war and the constant search for enemies worldwide to justify our own form of Deep State government, I would, to a large extent, have to believe that PNAC was either prescient or perhaps, more diabolically, actively engaged in creating a new reality.

That is not to suggest that either then or now most federal employees in the national security industry were part of some vast conspiracy but rather an indictment of the behavior and values of those at the top of the food chain, people who are characteristically singularly devoid of any ethical compass and base their decisions largely on personal and peer group ambition.

9/11 Truthers are characteristically very passionate about their beliefs, which is part of their problem in relating to a broader public. They frequently demand full adherence to their version of what passes for reality. In my own experience of more than twenty years on the intelligence side of government I have frequently found that truth is in fact elusive, often lying concealed in conflicting narratives. This is, I believe, the strength of Loose Change as it identifies and challenges inconsistencies in the established account without pontificating and, even though it has a definite point of view and draws conclusions, it avoids going over to the dark side and speculating on any number of the wilder "what-if" scenarios.

I recommend that readers watch Loose Change as it runs through discussions of U.S. military exercises and inexplicable stand-downs that occurred on 9/11, together with convincing accounts of engineering and technical issues related to how the World Trade Center and WTC7 collapsed. Particularly intriguing are the initial eyewitness accounts from the site of the alleged downing of UA 93 in Pennsylvania, a hole in the ground that otherwise showed absolutely no evidence of a plane having actually crashed. Nor have I ever seen any traces of a plane in photos taken at the Pentagon point of impact.

The film describes the subsequent investigative failures that took place, perhaps deliberately and arranged from inside the government, and concludes that the event amounts to an "American coup" which changed the United States both in terms of its domestic liberties and its foreign policy. After watching the film, one must accept that there are numerous inconsistencies that emerge from any examination of the standard narrative promoted by the 9/11 Commission and covered up by every White House since 2001. The film calls the existing corpus of government investigations into 9/11 a lie, a conclusion that I would certainly agree with.

The consequences of 9/11 are indeed more important than the event itself. Even those who have come to accept the established narrative would have to concede that "that day of infamy" changed America for the worse, as the film notes. While the United States government had previously engaged in illegal activity directed against for suspected spies, terrorists and a variety of international criminals, wholesale surveillance of what amounts to the entire population of the country was a new development brought in by the Patriot Acts. And, for the first time, secret prisons were set up overseas and citizens were arrested without being charged and held indefinitely. Under the authority of the Military Commissions Act tribunals were established to try those individuals who were suspected of being material supporters of terrorism, "material supporters" being loosely interpreted to make arrest, prosecution and imprisonment easier.

More recently, executive authority based on the anti-terror legislation has been used to execute American citizens overseas and, under the Authorization to Use Military Force, to attack suspects in a number of countries with which the United States is not at war. This all takes place with hardly a squeak from Congress or from the media. And when citizens object to any or all of the above they are blocked from taking action in the courts by the government's invocation of State Secrets Privilege, claiming that judicial review would reveal national secrets. Many believe that the United States has now become a precursor police state, all as a result of 9/11 and the so-called War on Terror which developed from that event.

So who benefited from 9/11? Clearly the executive branch of the government itself, which has seen an enormous expansion in its power and control over both the economy and people's lives, but there are also other entities like the military industrial complex, the Pentagon and intelligence agencies, and the financial services sector, all of which have gained considerably from the anti-terror largesse coming from the American taxpayer. Together these entities constitute an American Deep State, which controls both government and much of the private sector without ever being mentioned or seriously contested.

Suggesting government connivance in the events of 9/11 inevitably raises the question of who exactly might have ordered or carried out the attacks if they were in fact not fully and completely the work of a handful of Arab hijackers? The film suggests that one should perhaps consider the possibility of a sophisticated "false flag" operation, by which we mean that the apparent perpetrators of the act were not, in fact, the drivers or originators of what took place. Blowing up huge buildings and causing them to pancake from within, if indeed that is what took place, is the work of governments, not of a handful of terrorists. Only two governments would have had that capability, the United States itself and also Israel, unfortunately mentioned only once in passing in the film, a state player heavily engaged in attempting to bring America into its fight with the Arab world, with Benjamin Netanyahu subsequently saying that "We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq swung American public opinion in our favor."

To be honest I would prefer not to think that 9/11 might have been an inside job, but I am now convinced that a new 9/11 Commission is in order, one that is not run and guided by the government itself. If it can be demonstrated that the attacks carried out on that day were quite possibly set up by major figures both inside and outside the political establishment it might produce such a powerful reaction that the public would demand a reversal of the laws and policies that have so gravely damaged our republic. It is admittedly unlikely that anything like that could ever take place, but it is at least something to hope for.

NosytheDuke, October 25, 2016 at 4:36 am GMT • 100 Words

Only by constantly repeating to all and sundry the blatant falsehoods, frauds and meddling that are evident which absolutely contradict the official narrative of what happened can a tipping point be reached and the demands for a new, open and independent investigation be the unavoidable topic in political and social life.

Only after a new, open and independent investigation and a ruthless holding to account of those responsible has taken place can America go about its business of being great because it is good. Good luck with that.

3.MarkinLA, October 25, 2016 at 4:39 am GMT • 200 Words

Remember Korean Air flight 007. At that time the conspiracy theory was that the US and South Korean governments got the pilot to invade Soviet air space while the Space Shuttle was in the vicinity along with the electronic surveillance plane that crossed KAL007′s path in order to light up USSR air defenses and collect data.

Whether it was true or not, the Reagan administration used it to vilify the USSR and push it's hawkish agenda.

9/11 doesn't have to have been done by the government for Deep State entities to take advantage. Any preplanning of what to do afterward could also be explained by them knowing what was going to happen (ala Pearl Harbor) and letting it happen. There were plenty of intelligence reports in the commission proceedings that have indicated something was up but not acted upon. They didn't have an admiral they could blame like they did at Pearl so the whole system was blamed which made expanding the security apparatus so much easier.

Brabantian, Website

October 25, 2016 at 8:59 am GMT • 300 Words

In the European press, Italy's President Francesco Cossiga exposed that the NYC towers destruction of 11 September 2001 was done by the USA & Israel's Mossad , and that all Europe's governments know this

Too few people know, that the New York Times itself, a few weeks before the NYC towers fell, photographed 'Israeli art students' (!) working in-between the walls of the those towers, amidst stacks of boxes with certain markings which … identify the box contents as components of bomb detonators
World Trade Center's Infamous 91st-Floor Israeli 'Art Student' Project

Also, too few people know that Osama Bin Laden himself denied being involved in the 11 Sep. 2001 NYC towers destruction, & that the 'Osama Bin Laden' videos & tapes shown for several years afterwards, are clearly-proven fakes with actors

The claimed discoverer of those 'bin Laden' videos & tapes – allegedly scouring the 'Jihadi YouTubes' for material no one else 'finds' – is Israeli-American Rita Katz of the laughable 'SITE' – 'Search for International Terrorist Entities'

Dissident US military-intel veterans tell us:

" The truth about [Osama] Bin Laden, that his last known communication was December 3rd, 2001, received by the CIA / NSA intercept facility in Doha, in which he accused American Neocons of staging 9-11.

" This was less than two weeks before his death, as reported in Egypt, Pakistan, India, Iran and even by Fox News, until Rita Katz brought him back to life in the guise of a Mercedes repair shop owner of Somali parentage living in Haifa, Israel.

" The new short, fat Bin Laden, who lost his ability to speak Oxford English, continued to drop audio tapes in the dumpster behind Katz's Brooklyn apartment for years, until his frozen corpse was dumped into the Indian Ocean. "

- Gordon Duff, Veterans Today

Hans Vogel, October 25, 2016 at 9:07 am GMT

If I recall correctly, it was Thierry Meyssan who in 2002 in his book La terrible imposture first suggested that 9/11 was a coup. John Kerry's brother-in-law Sarkozy later forced Meyssan into exile, because he was becoming a nuisance to the US and their French puppets.

AmericaFirstNow , October 25, 2016 at 11:59 am GMT
@AmericaFirstNow 9/11 Motive & Media Betrayal :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95ncn5Q16N4&list=PL3C32560738EF3C30&feature=plpp

For actual 9/11 truth about how fire brought down Building 7 as well see the links at following URL:

http://america-hijacked.com/2011/07/14/alan-sabrosky-911-interview-with-press-tv-host-susan-modaress/

Rehmat, October 25, 2016 at 12:35 pm GMT • 200 Words

Dr. Giraldi is missing the point. While Washington and Zionist-controlled mainstream media had blamed the Taliban, Pakistan, Iran, and lately Saudi Arabia – they never mentioned the 800-pound Gorilla – the Zionist regime.

The most vilified person had been head of Pakistan's intelligence chief, Lt. Gen. Hamid Gul, who pointed his finger to Israel Mossad two weeks after the 9/11 – even before media ridiculously blamed Osama Bin Laden in order to invade and occupy Afghanistan – a country which did not had a single tank, helicopter, fighter jet or even a commercial plane to defend itself from the so-called ONLY WORLD POWER.

Hamid Gul's claim on September 26, 2001, is now supported by thousands of scientists, scholars, politicians, architects and even a Jewish member of the so-called 9/11 COMISSION, Philip Zelikow (Zionist Jew) admitted in 2004 that America invaded Iraq in 2003 because Saddam Hussein became an existential threat to the Zionist entity.

In December 2001, US historian Michael Collins Piper claimed that the so-called "19 Arab hijackers" could have been Israeli agents.

On September 10, 2016, Dr. Paul Craig Roberts posted an article, entitled, 9/11: 15 years of a transparent lie.

https://rehmat1.com/2015/08/17/gen-hamid-gul-the-muslim-soparno-dies/

Fred Reed , October 25, 2016 at 2:22 pm GMT

Nine-Eleven Conspiracy Exam (Note: This was written when Israel was the most popular culprit. Some questions may need to be changed to reflect changes in guilt. Failure to answer all questions will result in a grade of F.)

Diogenes, October 25, 2016 at 2:24 pm GMT

9/11 was an amazing sociological event for what it can tell us about human psychology. The vast majority of people uncritically swallowed the official explanation, a few critical observers cast suspicions on the official story, then a group of chronically suspicious people, known as conspiracy theorists, who believe the government cannot be trusted had a cause celebre, then a group of anti conspiracy theorists and pro-government reactionaries devoted their energies to discredit the 9/11 Truthers while the vast majority of people are as a result confused and paralyzed into indecision and apathy. I will take note of who in these comments are 9/11 naysayers and observe what they say about other controversial topics!

Rurik , October 25, 2016 at 2:55 pm GMT

The underlying premise of most 9/11 revisionism is that the United States government, or at least parts of it, is capable of almost anything.

we now know that they set the Waco compound on fire, and that they were firing machine guns into the only exit once the flames had engulfed the building. Bodies were piled up at the site of the exit that the coroner ruled were homicide deaths from bullet wounds. Homicides that our government committed. Most American yawn at such news. 'Those people (including the children) were 'whackos'.

Recently our government has murdered or maimed or displaced millions upon millions of innocent men, women and children in the Middle East, and destroyed several countries, all based on by now well-established lies. Most Americans yawn at such knowledge. Those people 'hate our freedom'.

Our government is also running a permanent torture camp. A 'Ministry of Love', or Minluv, in Orwell's Newspeak parlance.

The signatories of the neocon Project for the New American Century paper observed that was needed was a catalyst to produce a public demand to "do something," that "something" being an event comparable to Pearl Harbor. Seventeen signatories of the document wound up in senior positions in the Bush Administration.

the "something" that these neocon Zionists demanded from their "new Pearl Harbor like event" was for America to set about destroying all Muslim nations considered inconvenient to Israel. Without the 'event', Americans just were not willing to sacrifice their children to the Zionist cause.

One of the central figures demanding that America act in Israel's interest was a one Phillip D. Zelikow. A neocon insider extraordinaire.

This from his Wiki page:

In the November–December 1998 issue of Foreign Affairs, he co-authored an article Catastrophic Terrorism, with Ashton B. Carter , and John M. Deutch, in which they speculated that if the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center had succeeded, "the resulting horror and chaos would have exceeded our ability to describe it. Such an act of catastrophic terrorism would be a watershed event in American history. It could involve loss of life and property unprecedented in peacetime and undermine America's fundamental sense of security, as did the Soviet atomic bomb test in 1949. Like Pearl Harbor, the event would divide our past and future into a before and after. The United States might respond with draconian measures scaling back civil liberties, allowing wider surveillance of citizens, detention of suspects and use of deadly force. More violence could follow, either future terrorist attacks or U.S. counterattacks. Belatedly, Americans would judge their leaders negligent for not addressing terrorism more urgently." [24]

Yes, that Ashton Carter, our current Secretary of Defense. And John Deutch was the director of the CIA at one time. (perhaps Mr. Giraldi knows of him)

This Jewish neocon war mongering Zionist who called for a Peal Harbor like event to catalyze Americans to go to war for Israel, ended up being the executive director of the 911 Commission. The same 911 Commission that is universally recognized as a fraud and a cover up. Even by some of the men who were on it.

I'm going to stop here. My head simply swims from the sheer evil of these people.

Miro23, October 25, 2016 at 3:20 pm

@Fred Reed

A simpler 9/11 questionnaire for Fred;

"Did right wing elements in Israel close to Likud, and US Neocons close to the Bush administration engineer the attacks to enable the Iraq war?" Yes____ No____ Don't know____

Essay question: Are there any similarities between these events and other False Flag attacks aimed at Great Britain and the US such as 1) The King David Hotel bombing 2) Operation Susannah – Lavon Affair 3) USS Liberty?

Jon Gold , October 25, 2016 at 3:31 pm GMT • 200 Words

Loose Change? C'mon Phil…

9/11: Press For Truth
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmHPfXemf10

In Their Own Words: The Untold Stories Of The 9/11 Families
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBblyIPxZFE

9/11 Family Members, Jersey Girls, and member of the 9/11 Family Steering Committee Lorie Van Auken and Mindy Kleinberg released a report showing how poorly the 9/11 Commission answered their questions:

http://wewereliedtoabout911.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/fsc_review.pdf

The September Eleventh Advocates (Jersey Girls) have released a multitude of press releases over the years bringing attention to and calling into question certain aspects of 9/11:

http://wewereliedtoabout911.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/911advocates.pdf

Here are the 9/11 Family Steering Committee's list of unanswered questions. The final statement from the 9/11 Family Steering Committee states "the report did not answer all of our questions…":

http://www.911independentcommission.org/questions.html

Here is essential testimony from different 9/11 Family Members during the 9/11 Commission:

http://www.911independentcommission.org/testimony.html

Here are all of the different statements released by the 9/11 Family Steering Committee during the time of the 9/11 Commission. They show extremely well the corruption and compromise within the 9/11 Commission:

http://www.911independentcommission.org/news.html

My EXTREMELY extensive show "We Were Lied To About 9/11."

https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/we-were-lied-to-about-9-11/id955030348?mt=2

Rurik October 25, 2016 at 3:56 pm GMT • 1,000 Words
@Fred Reed Nine-Eleven Conspiracy Exam (Note: This was written when Israel was the most popular culprit. Some questions may need to be changed to reflect changes in guilt. Failure to answer all questions will result in a grade of F.)

Was the US government solely responsible for the attacks? yes___no___Don't know___


Was Israel solely responsible for the attacks? yes___no___Don't know___


Did Israel and the US government together engineer the attacks? yes___no___Don't know___


Was neither Israel nor the US government responsible? yes___no___Don't know___


Were Saudis involved in any way in the plot? yes___no___Don't know___


If Israel was responsible, did the CIA know? yes___no___Don't know___


Was President Bush, through the CIA or otherwise, aware of the Israeli participation, making the President and the CIA part of the conspiracy? yes___no___Don't know___


Did AA77 hit the Pentagon. yes___no___Don't know___


Essay question: If no, What happened to AA77? ____________ Don't know___


If not AA77, did a missile hit the Pentagon? yes___no___Don't know___


If a missile, was ws it fired by the US military, making the military part of the conspiracy? yes___no___Don't know___


If no, fired by whom? ____________ Don't know___


Did the NTSB fake the data from the flight data recorders, making it part of the conspiracy? yes___no___Don't know___


Were the Towers destroyed by a controlled demolition? yes___no___Don't know___


Did aircraft hit the the Towers? yes___no___Don't know___


If so, who flew them? ____________ Don't know__


Essay question: Why both controlled demolition and aircraft? Ignore this question if the two were not used together


Essay question: If a controlled demolition, describe the placement and quantities needed, and the source of your information.


Was the FBI involved in the cover-up, and therefore part of the conspiracy? yes___no___Don't know___


Was Larry Silverstein, owner of the Towers, part of the conspiracy? yes___no___Don't know___


Did the media cover up the conspiracy, thereby making them part of it? yes___no___Don't know___


Essay question: If Israel was involved, should America bomb Tel Aviv?

Was the US government solely responsible for the attacks? yes___no___Don't know___

no, Israel was also responsible

Was Israel solely responsible for the attacks? yes___no___Don't know___

No, elements in the US gov and controlled media were also responsible

Did Israel and the US government together engineer the attacks? yes___no___Don't know___

not governments per se, but elements in those governments. Like "the orders still stand" Dick Cheney, but certainly not all the assorted minions of the US or Israeli governments.

Was neither Israel nor the US government responsible? yes___no___Don't know___

not governments per se. If you restrict the question to this broadly defined blanket condemnation, then the answer would be 'yes'.

Were Saudis involved in any way in the plot? yes___no___Don't know___

there's zero reason for thinking so

If Israel was responsible, did the CIA know? yes___no___Don't know___

at the highest levels, yes, but there again, that certainly doesn't mean every single employee

Was President Bush, through the CIA or otherwise, aware of the Israeli participation, making the President and the CIA part of the conspiracy? yes___no___Don't know___

Don't know

Did AA77 hit the Pentagon. yes___no___Don't know___

there's no evidence of it. And if it had, they'd show us one of the scores (hundreds?) of videos

Essay question: If no, What happened to AA77? ____________ Don't know___

the reason the flights were wildly diverted was probably to land the planes, liquidate the passengers and crew, and then send up specially outfitted jets for the purpose of crashing into the towers. (as the pretext for them to collapse, as the pretext to start the Eternal Wars for Israel and to turn us all into Palestinians)

If not AA77, did a missile hit the Pentagon? yes___no___Don't know___

it looks like it

If a missile, was ws it fired by the US military, making the military part of the conspiracy? yes___no___Don't know___

Don't know. And again, it wouldn't be "the military", as in some monolithic entity that is fully aware of everything that "it' does. There are fringe sub-sets of the military that are often engaged in illegal and covert ops.

If no, fired by whom? ____________ Don't know___

Don't know

Did the NTSB fake the data from the flight data recorders, making it part of the conspiracy? yes___no___Don't know___

what data?!

From what I understand, we have not been made privy to any of the information on any of the flight data recorders. If you're aware of any data from the flight data recorders then you should give us a link!

Were the Towers destroyed by a controlled demolition? yes___no___Don't know___

yes

it's *obvious* that building seven was thus demolished, and so it follows that the other two were also.

Did aircraft hit the the Towers? yes___no___Don't know___

two of them, yes. The third was not hit by a plane, it simply plopped down in nicely cut pieces ready for shipment to China.

If so, who flew them? ____________ Don't know__

In all likelihood, remote control. Check out the comptroller of the Pentagon at the time and his sundry organizations. Nice little rabbit hole of its own.

Essay question: Why both controlled demolition and aircraft? Ignore this question if the two were not used together

horror

they needed to horrify and anger the American people to rally us to war on Israel's neighbors. (+ there was the added benefit to lucky Larry of a few billion shekels and an opportunity to get rid of a couple of financial boondoggles. Such a deal!)

Essay question: If a controlled demolition, describe the placement and quantities needed, and the source of your information.

this is silly

we don't need to know the exact caliber of bullet that hit JFK to know that the government and Warren commission was lying. And they likely used military type crap that we're not even privy to. Come on Fred.

Was the FBI involved in the cover-up, and therefore part of the conspiracy? yes___no___Don't know___

elements, sure

like the people that went around and collected all the videos that might have showed what hit the Pentagon. Certainly the people at the top were and are privy to the crime and cover up. Just like with JFK.

Was Larry Silverstein, owner of the Towers, part of the conspiracy? yes___no___Don't know___

Yes, of course he was

Did the media cover up the conspiracy, thereby making them part of it? yes___no___Don't know___

not your local channel seven, but the media as it's controlled from the top, and lie about EVERTYING. Yes Fred, that media was complicit. And still are. And are the ones that are going to hand the reins of this nations to Hillary Clinton. That media, you betcha.

Essay question: If Israel was involved, should America bomb Tel Aviv?

of course not. There again you're being silly Fred.

what America should do is the same thing is should (and still needs to) do as regards the other cowardly and treacherous false flag that *elements* in the Israeli government and security forces were responsible for- the attack on the USS Liberty. We should have a real investigation that ferrets out these uber-criminals and brings them to justice.

911 was a coup to turn the US into Israel's rabid dog in the Levant. And create a police state for any Americans that object, even with our very own torture camp. Isn't that something?

You should write about it someday Fred. I can't think of a person more suited to mock the American idea of the free and the brave running a torture camp for goat herders and Afghans who don't want America making them free too.

as for 911, all you have to know is that building seven was an obvious controlled demolition. From there it doesn't matter if George Dubya Bush was in on it or what type of materials specifically were used to bring the buildings down. That shit is all academic. We know they lied, and are lying. Only a deluded fool or moral coward (or worse) would pretend to themselves otherwise once he's seen the irrefutable evidence that they're lying.

TheJester October 25, 2016 at 4:31 pm GMT • 200 Words

There are multiple ways to engineer a "False Flag" attack:

1. You do it yourself, flying someone else's "flag" and hope no one notices. (Very primitive … rarely works unless you are a wooden frigate at sea attacking enemy maritime commerce.)

2. You hire someone else to do it and hope none of them get caught. (Moderately primitive … but it worked for awhile in the Kennedy assassination.)

3. You infiltrate a hostile terrorist organization, take control, and redirect it to the attack. (Very difficult to do … but this was done in the NATO-sponsored Gladio terrorist attacks in Europe in the 1960s as well as the Black Hand attacks that precipitated WWI.)

4. You infiltrate a hostile terrorist organization, discover what they have planned, and QUIETLY remove all of YOUR obstacles that would otherwise have prevented the attack. (This is the best if you can pull it off since you leave no fingerprints. You might, as in 911, be accused of incompetent but, okay, you missed that one, so what!)

BTW: #4 doesn't mean you don't help the terrorists with a little demolition work to make sure the spectacle unfolds as planned. You really need grand firework displays in these things to get them the attention they deserve.

Si1ver1ock, October 25, 2016 at 5:04 pm GMT

For those just coming into the 911 Truth movement, you should probably look at the hard evidence first to see if it merits further consideration. After that, you can go to he circumstantial evidence.

Start with the physics and engineering:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HNIIdpMhFg

The question isn't whether this theory or that theory is absolutely correct. The question is whether there is sufficient cause for a new investigation. I never hear a good argument from the anti-Truth crowd as to why we shouldn't have another investigation.

We want a new investigation. They don't want one. Why?

Miro23, October 25, 2016 at 7:17 pm GMT

A key to instant identification of the faith-based C-theorist is the loud claim that "steel-framed buildings" don't collapse as a result of fire. Fact is, yes they do - known, verified, fully-explained using real, verifiable data.

Here's a list of steel framed high rises and other high rises that experienced major fires:

– One New York Plaza, New York. 50 stories steel. Dropped beams on 33rd & 34th floors.
– Alexis Nihon Plaza, Montreal. 15 stories steel. Partial collapse on 11th floor.
– Windsor Tower, Madrid. 29 stories steel/concrete. Partial collapse.
– One Meridian Plaza, Philadelphia. 38 stories. No collapse.
– Broadgate Phase 8, London. 14 stories. No collapse.
– First Interstate Bank, Los Angeles. 62 stories. No collapse.
– MGM Grand Hotel, Las Vegas. 26 stories. No collapse.
– Joelma Building, Sao Paulo. 25 stories. No collapse.
– Andraus Building, Sao Paulo. 31 stories. No collapse.

These fires were much longer lasting and more intense than the WTC fires and none of these buildings experienced a complete collapse.
Can you give a list of modern steel frame 20 storey+ buildings similar to WTC 1, 2 & 7 that have experienced a complete collapse due to fire – known and verified.

Miro23 , October 25, 2016 at 8:23 pm GMT • 300 Words

I have repeatedly noted that the Commission investigators failed to look into the potential foreign government involvement in the events that took place that day. Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan just for starters may have been involved in or had knowledge relating to 9/11 but the only investigation that took place, insofar as I can determine, was a perfunctory look at the possible Saudi role, the notorious 28 pages, which have recently been released in a redacted form.

It might have been worth checking out Israel a bit more closely. They have been running False Flag operations against the British and the US for years, aimed at engaging them in war against Arab states. For example:

The Irgun bombing of the King David Hotel (headquarters of the British Mandate Government of Palestine) in which Zionists dressed as Arabs placed milk churns filled with explosives against the main columns of the building killing 91 people and injuring 44. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu attended a celebration to commemorate the event.

Operation Susannah (Lavon Affair) where Israeli operatives impersonating Arabs bombed British and American cinemas, libraries and educational centres in Egypt to destabilize the country and keep British troops committed to the Middle East.

Or on June 8th 1967, the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty with unmarked aircraft and torpedo boats. 34 men were killed and 171 wounded, with the attack in international waters following nine hours of close surveillance. When the ship failed to sink, the Israeli government concocted an elaborate story to cover the crime. Original plan to blame the sinking with all lives lost on the Egyptians and draw the US into the 6 Day War.

Or Israelis and U.S. Zionists appearing all over the more recent WTC 9/11 "Operation" with Israelis once again impersonating Arabs in a historic deception/terror action of a type that carries a lot of kudos with old ex-terrorist Likudniks. In any event, Israelis were sent to film the historic day (as they later admitted on Israeli TV), with the celebrations including photos of themselves with a background of the burning towers.

CanSpeccy says: • Website October 25, 2016 at 9:57 pm GMT •
@War for Blair Mountain
add in the fact that the steel support beams only had to be softened not melted to cause catastrophic structural failure.
You are absolutely correct about that. If the beams had melted, or even softened, then the building would have collapsed. But not straight down at near free-fall speed into its own footprint, while crushing all the concrete to dust.

If the columns had melted, or merely softened, they would not have melted or softened uniformly across the the building, so the result would have been an asymetric collapse resulting in the top of the building toppling over and crashing onto the roof of adjacent buildings. The portion of the building beneath the fire zone would have been left standing.

But, as we know, nothing like that happened.

CanSpeccy , October 26, 2016 at 2:07 am GMT • 400 Words @Oldeguy
Pretty much my response. Something, I know not what, is amiss with Our Favorite Expatriate.
Not being sure of what really happened in an event this pivotal is a reason to proceed with further discussion and investigation- not to shut it down.
The most successful, by far, commando operation in history performed flawlessly by a bunch of guys with boxcutters directed by cell phone by a fugitive hiding out in a cave in Afghanistan ?
On the the face of it, that matches the goofiest of any of the conspiracy theories.

On the the face of it, that [the theory about 19 guys with box-cutters under the direction of fugitive in a cave in Afghanistan] matches the goofiest of any of the conspiracy theories.

And even the members of the 9/11 Commission have admitted they don't really believe it.

Thus:

The co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission (Thomas Keane and Lee Hamilton) said that the CIA (and likely the White House) "obstructed our investigation".

The co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission also said that the 9/11 Commissioners knew that military officials misrepresented the facts to the Commission, and the Commission considered recommending criminal charges for such false statements , yet didn't bother to tell the American people (free subscription required).

Indeed, the co-chairs of the Commission now admit that the Commission largely operated based upon political considerations .

9/11 Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton says "I don't believe for a minute we got everything right", that the Commission was set up to fail, that people should keep asking questions about 9/11, that the 9/11 debate should continue, and that the 9/11 Commission report was only "the first draft" of history .

9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey said that "There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version . . . We didn't have access . . . ."

9/11 Commissioner Timothy Roemer said "We were extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting"

Former 9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland resigned from the Commission, stating: "It is a national scandal" ; "This investigation is now compromised" ; and "One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up" .

9/11 Commissioner John Lehman said that " We purposely put together a staff that had – in a way – conflicts of interest ".

The Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission (John Farmer) who led the 9/11 staff's inquiry, said "I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described …. The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years…. This is not spin. This is not true."

[Oct 25, 2016] 11 Truth? Was it an American coup?

Notable quotes:
"... Jill Stein of the Green Party has recognized that exercises in which the United States government examines its own behavior are certain to come up with a result that basically exonerates the politicians and the federal bureaucracy. ..."
"... A friend recently recommended that I take a look at a film on 9/11 that was first produced back in 2005. It is called Loose Change 9/11 and is available on Amazon Video or in DVD form as well as elsewhere in a number of updated versions. The first version reportedly provides the most coherent account, though the later updates certainly are worth watching, add significantly to the narrative, and are currently more accessible. ..."
"... Loose Change is an examination of the inconsistencies in the standard 9/11 narrative, a subject that has been thoroughly poked and prodded in a number of other documentaries and books, but it benefits from the immediacy of the account and the fresh memories of the participants in the events who were interviewed by the documentary's director Dylan Avery starting in 2004. It also includes a bit of a history lesson for the average viewer, recalling Hitler's Reichstag fire, Pearl Harbor and the Gulf of Tonkin incident, all of which were essentially fraudulent and led to the assumption of emergency powers by the respective heads of state. ..."
"... The underlying premise of most 9/11 revisionism is that the United States government, or at least parts of it, is capable of almost anything. ..."
"... The signatories of the neocon Project for the New American Century paper observed that was needed was a catalyst to produce a public demand to "do something," that "something" being an event comparable to Pearl Harbor. Seventeen signatories of the document wound up in senior positions in the Bush Administration. ..."
"... The new Pearl Harbor turned out to be 9/11. Given developments since 9/11 itself, to include the way the U.S. has persisted in going to war and the constant search for enemies worldwide to justify our own form of Deep State government, I would, to a large extent, have to believe that PNAC was either prescient or perhaps, more diabolically, actively engaged in creating a new reality. ..."
"... the strength of Loose Change as it identifies and challenges inconsistencies in the established account without pontificating and, even though it has a definite point of view and draws conclusions, it avoids going over to the dark side and speculating on any number of the wilder "what-if" scenarios. ..."
"... I recommend that readers watch Loose Change as it runs through discussions of U.S. military exercises and inexplicable stand-downs that occurred on 9/11, together with convincing accounts of engineering and technical issues related to how the World Trade Center and WTC7 collapsed. Particularly intriguing are the initial eyewitness accounts from the site of the alleged downing of UA 93 in Pennsylvania, a hole in the ground that otherwise showed absolutely no evidence of a plane having actually crashed. Nor have I ever seen any traces of a plane in photos taken at the Pentagon point of impact. ..."
Oct 25, 2016 | www.unz.com
11 Truth? Was it an "American coup?" Leave a Comment For the first time a presidential candidate, admittedly from a fringe party, is calling for a reexamination of 9/11. Jill Stein of the Green Party has recognized that exercises in which the United States government examines its own behavior are certain to come up with a result that basically exonerates the politicians and the federal bureaucracy. This has been the case since the Warren Commission report on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, which, inter alia, failed to thoroughly investigate key players like Lee Harvey Oswald and Jack Ruby and came up with a single gunman scenario in spite of considerable evidence to the contrary.

When it comes to 9/11, I have been reluctant to enter the fray largely because I do not have the scientific and technical chops to seriously assess how buildings collapse or how a large passenger airliner might be completely consumed by a fire. In my own area, of expertise, which is intelligence, I have repeatedly noted that the Commission investigators failed to look into the potential foreign government involvement in the events that took place that day. Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan just for starters may have been involved in or had knowledge relating to 9/11 but the only investigation that took place, insofar as I can determine, was a perfunctory look at the possible Saudi role, the notorious 28 pages, which have recently been released in a redacted form.

A friend recently recommended that I take a look at a film on 9/11 that was first produced back in 2005. It is called Loose Change 9/11 and is available on Amazon Video or in DVD form as well as elsewhere in a number of updated versions. The first version reportedly provides the most coherent account, though the later updates certainly are worth watching, add significantly to the narrative, and are currently more accessible.

Loose Change is an examination of the inconsistencies in the standard 9/11 narrative, a subject that has been thoroughly poked and prodded in a number of other documentaries and books, but it benefits from the immediacy of the account and the fresh memories of the participants in the events who were interviewed by the documentary's director Dylan Avery starting in 2004. It also includes a bit of a history lesson for the average viewer, recalling Hitler's Reichstag fire, Pearl Harbor and the Gulf of Tonkin incident, all of which were essentially fraudulent and led to the assumption of emergency powers by the respective heads of state.

The underlying premise of most 9/11 revisionism is that the United States government, or at least parts of it, is capable of almost anything. Loose Change describes how leading hawkish Republicans were, as early as 2000, pushing to increase U.S. military capabilities so that the country would be able to fight multi-front wars. The signatories of the neocon Project for the New American Century paper observed that was needed was a catalyst to produce a public demand to "do something," that "something" being an event comparable to Pearl Harbor. Seventeen signatories of the document wound up in senior positions in the Bush Administration.

The new Pearl Harbor turned out to be 9/11. Given developments since 9/11 itself, to include the way the U.S. has persisted in going to war and the constant search for enemies worldwide to justify our own form of Deep State government, I would, to a large extent, have to believe that PNAC was either prescient or perhaps, more diabolically, actively engaged in creating a new reality.

That is not to suggest that either then or now most federal employees in the national security industry were part of some vast conspiracy but rather an indictment of the behavior and values of those at the top of the food chain, people who are characteristically singularly devoid of any ethical compass and base their decisions largely on personal and peer group ambition.

9/11 Truthers are characteristically very passionate about their beliefs, which is part of their problem in relating to a broader public. They frequently demand full adherence to their version of what passes for reality. In my own experience of more than twenty years on the intelligence side of government I have frequently found that truth is in fact elusive, often lying concealed in conflicting narratives. This is, I believe, the strength of Loose Change as it identifies and challenges inconsistencies in the established account without pontificating and, even though it has a definite point of view and draws conclusions, it avoids going over to the dark side and speculating on any number of the wilder "what-if" scenarios.

I recommend that readers watch Loose Change as it runs through discussions of U.S. military exercises and inexplicable stand-downs that occurred on 9/11, together with convincing accounts of engineering and technical issues related to how the World Trade Center and WTC7 collapsed. Particularly intriguing are the initial eyewitness accounts from the site of the alleged downing of UA 93 in Pennsylvania, a hole in the ground that otherwise showed absolutely no evidence of a plane having actually crashed. Nor have I ever seen any traces of a plane in photos taken at the Pentagon point of impact.

The film describes the subsequent investigative failures that took place, perhaps deliberately and arranged from inside the government, and concludes that the event amounts to an "American coup" which changed the United States both in terms of its domestic liberties and its foreign policy. After watching the film, one must accept that there are numerous inconsistencies that emerge from any examination of the standard narrative promoted by the 9/11 Commission and covered up by every White House since 2001. The film calls the existing corpus of government investigations into 9/11 a lie, a conclusion that I would certainly agree with.

The consequences of 9/11 are indeed more important than the event itself. Even those who have come to accept the established narrative would have to concede that "that day of infamy" changed America for the worse, as the film notes. While the United States government had previously engaged in illegal activity directed against for suspected spies, terrorists and a variety of international criminals, wholesale surveillance of what amounts to the entire population of the country was a new development brought in by the Patriot Acts. And, for the first time, secret prisons were set up overseas and citizens were arrested without being charged and held indefinitely. Under the authority of the Military Commissions Act tribunals were established to try those individuals who were suspected of being material supporters of terrorism, "material supporters" being loosely interpreted to make arrest, prosecution and imprisonment easier.

More recently, executive authority based on the anti-terror legislation has been used to execute American citizens overseas and, under the Authorization to Use Military Force, to attack suspects in a number of countries with which the United States is not at war. This all takes place with hardly a squeak from Congress or from the media. And when citizens object to any or all of the above they are blocked from taking action in the courts by the government's invocation of State Secrets Privilege, claiming that judicial review would reveal national secrets. Many believe that the United States has now become a precursor police state, all as a result of 9/11 and the so-called War on Terror which developed from that event.

So who benefited from 9/11? Clearly the executive branch of the government itself, which has seen an enormous expansion in its power and control over both the economy and people's lives, but there are also other entities like the military industrial complex, the Pentagon and intelligence agencies, and the financial services sector, all of which have gained considerably from the anti-terror largesse coming from the American taxpayer. Together these entities constitute an American Deep State, which controls both government and much of the private sector without ever being mentioned or seriously contested.

Suggesting government connivance in the events of 9/11 inevitably raises the question of who exactly might have ordered or carried out the attacks if they were in fact not fully and completely the work of a handful of Arab hijackers? The film suggests that one should perhaps consider the possibility of a sophisticated "false flag" operation, by which we mean that the apparent perpetrators of the act were not, in fact, the drivers or originators of what took place. Blowing up huge buildings and causing them to pancake from within, if indeed that is what took place, is the work of governments, not of a handful of terrorists. Only two governments would have had that capability, the United States itself and also Israel, unfortunately mentioned only once in passing in the film, a state player heavily engaged in attempting to bring America into its fight with the Arab world, with Benjamin Netanyahu subsequently saying that "We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq swung American public opinion in our favor."

To be honest I would prefer not to think that 9/11 might have been an inside job, but I am now convinced that a new 9/11 Commission is in order, one that is not run and guided by the government itself. If it can be demonstrated that the attacks carried out on that day were quite possibly set up by major figures both inside and outside the political establishment it might produce such a powerful reaction that the public would demand a reversal of the laws and policies that have so gravely damaged our republic. It is admittedly unlikely that anything like that could ever take place, but it is at least something to hope for.

[Oct 16, 2016] The Deep State

Notable quotes:
"... "deep state" - the Washington-Wall-Street-Silicon-Valley Establishment - is a far greater threat to liberty than you think ..."
"... Yes, there is another government concealed behind the one that is visible at either end of Pennsylvania Avenue, a hybrid entity of public and private institutions ruling the country according to consistent patterns in season and out, connected to, but only intermittently controlled by, the visible state whose leaders we choose. ..."
"... Cultural assimilation is partly a matter of what psychologist Irving L. Janis called "groupthink," the chameleon-like ability of people to adopt the views of their superiors and peers. This syndrome is endemic to Washington: The town is characterized by sudden fads, be it negotiating biennial budgeting, making grand bargains or invading countries. Then, after a while, all the town's cool kids drop those ideas as if they were radioactive. As in the military, everybody has to get on board with the mission, and questioning it is not a career-enhancing move. The universe of people who will critically examine the goings-on at the institutions they work for is always going to be a small one. As Upton Sinclair said, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." ..."
Feb 28, 2014 | The American Conservative

Steve Sailer links to this unsettling essay by former career Congressional staffer Mike Lofgren, who says the "deep state" - the Washington-Wall-Street-Silicon-Valley Establishment - is a far greater threat to liberty than you think. The partisan rancor and gridlock in Washington conceals a more fundamental and pervasive agreement.

Excerpts:

These are not isolated instances of a contradiction; they have been so pervasive that they tend to be disregarded as background noise. During the time in 2011 when political warfare over the debt ceiling was beginning to paralyze the business of governance in Washington, the United States government somehow summoned the resources to overthrow Muammar Ghaddafi's regime in Libya, and, when the instability created by that coup spilled over into Mali, provide overt and covert assistance to French intervention there. At a time when there was heated debate about continuing meat inspections and civilian air traffic control because of the budget crisis, our government was somehow able to commit $115 million to keeping a civil war going in Syria and to pay at least £100m to the United Kingdom's Government Communications Headquarters to buy influence over and access to that country's intelligence. Since 2007, two bridges carrying interstate highways have collapsed due to inadequate maintenance of infrastructure, one killing 13 people. During that same period of time, the government spent $1.7 billion constructing a building in Utah that is the size of 17 football fields. This mammoth structure is intended to allow the National Security Agency to store a yottabyte of information, the largest numerical designator computer scientists have coined. A yottabyte is equal to 500 quintillion pages of text. They need that much storage to archive every single trace of your electronic life.

Yes, there is another government concealed behind the one that is visible at either end of Pennsylvania Avenue, a hybrid entity of public and private institutions ruling the country according to consistent patterns in season and out, connected to, but only intermittently controlled by, the visible state whose leaders we choose. My analysis of this phenomenon is not an exposé of a secret, conspiratorial cabal; the state within a state is hiding mostly in plain sight, and its operators mainly act in the light of day. Nor can this other government be accurately termed an "establishment." All complex societies have an establishment, a social network committed to its own enrichment and perpetuation. In terms of its scope, financial resources and sheer global reach, the American hybrid state, the Deep State, is in a class by itself. That said, it is neither omniscient nor invincible. The institution is not so much sinister (although it has highly sinister aspects) as it is relentlessly well entrenched. Far from being invincible, its failures, such as those in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, are routine enough that it is only the Deep State's protectiveness towards its higher-ranking personnel that allows them to escape the consequences of their frequent ineptitude.

More:

Washington is the most important node of the Deep State that has taken over America, but it is not the only one. Invisible threads of money and ambition connect the town to other nodes. One is Wall Street, which supplies the cash that keeps the political machine quiescent and operating as a diversionary marionette theater. Should the politicians forget their lines and threaten the status quo, Wall Street floods the town with cash and lawyers to help the hired hands remember their own best interests. The executives of the financial giants even have de facto criminal immunity. On March 6, 2013, testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Attorney General Eric Holder stated the following: "I am concerned that the size of some of these institutions becomes so large that it does become difficult for us to prosecute them when we are hit with indications that if you do prosecute, if you do bring a criminal charge, it will have a negative impact on the national economy, perhaps even the world economy." This, from the chief law enforcement officer of a justice system that has practically abolished the constitutional right to trial for poorer defendants charged with certain crimes. It is not too much to say that Wall Street may be the ultimate owner of the Deep State and its strategies, if for no other reason than that it has the money to reward government operatives with a second career that is lucrative beyond the dreams of avarice - certainly beyond the dreams of a salaried government employee. [3]

The corridor between Manhattan and Washington is a well trodden highway for the personalities we have all gotten to know in the period since the massive deregulation of Wall Street: Robert Rubin, Lawrence Summers, Henry Paulson, Timothy Geithner and many others. Not all the traffic involves persons connected with the purely financial operations of the government: In 2013, General David Petraeus joined KKR (formerly Kohlberg Kravis Roberts) of 9 West 57th Street, New York, a private equity firm with $62.3 billion in assets. KKR specializes in management buyouts and leveraged finance. General Petraeus' expertise in these areas is unclear. His ability to peddle influence, however, is a known and valued commodity. Unlike Cincinnatus, the military commanders of the Deep State do not take up the plow once they lay down the sword. Petraeus also obtained a sinecure as a non-resident senior fellow at theBelfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard. The Ivy League is, of course, the preferred bleaching tub and charm school of the American oligarchy.

Lofgren goes on to say that Silicon Valley is a node of the Deep State too, and that despite the protestations of its chieftains against NSA spying, it's a vital part of the Deep State's apparatus. More:

The Deep State is the big story of our time. It is the red thread that runs through the war on terrorism, the financialization and deindustrialization of the American economy, the rise of a plutocratic social structure and political dysfunction. Washington is the headquarters of the Deep State, and its time in the sun as a rival to Rome, Constantinople or London may be term-limited by its overweening sense of self-importance and its habit, as Winwood Reade said of Rome, to "live upon its principal till ruin stared it in the face."

Read the whole thing.

... I would love to see a study comparing the press coverage from 9/11 leading up to the Iraq War with press coverage of the gay marriage issue from about 2006 till today. Specifically, I'd be curious to know about how thoroughly the media covered the cases against the policies that the Deep State and the Shallow State decided should prevail. I'm not suggesting a conspiracy here, not at all. I'm only thinking back to how it seemed so obvious to me in 2002 that we should go to war with Iraq, so perfectly clear that the only people who opposed it were fools or villains. The same consensus has emerged around same-sex marriage. I know how overwhelmingly the news media have believed this for some time, such that many American journalists simply cannot conceive that anyone against same-sex marriage is anything other than a fool or a villain. Again, this isn't a conspiracy; it's in the nature of the thing. Lofgren:

Cultural assimilation is partly a matter of what psychologist Irving L. Janis called "groupthink," the chameleon-like ability of people to adopt the views of their superiors and peers. This syndrome is endemic to Washington: The town is characterized by sudden fads, be it negotiating biennial budgeting, making grand bargains or invading countries. Then, after a while, all the town's cool kids drop those ideas as if they were radioactive. As in the military, everybody has to get on board with the mission, and questioning it is not a career-enhancing move. The universe of people who will critically examine the goings-on at the institutions they work for is always going to be a small one. As Upton Sinclair said, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."

A more elusive aspect of cultural assimilation is the sheer dead weight of the ordinariness of it all once you have planted yourself in your office chair for the 10,000th time. Government life is typically not some vignette from an Allen Drury novel about intrigue under the Capitol dome. Sitting and staring at the clock on the off-white office wall when it's 11:00 in the evening and you are vowing never, ever to eat another piece of takeout pizza in your life is not an experience that summons the higher literary instincts of a would-be memoirist. After a while, a functionary of the state begins to hear things that, in another context, would be quite remarkable, or at least noteworthy, and yet that simply bounce off one's consciousness like pebbles off steel plate: "You mean the number of terrorist groups we are fighting is classified?" No wonder so few people are whistle-blowers, quite apart from the vicious retaliation whistle-blowing often provokes: Unless one is blessed with imagination and a fine sense of irony, growing immune to the curiousness of one's surroundings is easy. To paraphrase the inimitable Donald Rumsfeld, I didn't know all that I knew, at least until I had had a couple of years away from the government to reflect upon it.

When all you know is the people who surround you in your professional class bubble and your social circles, you can think the whole world agrees with you, or should. It's probably not a coincidence that the American media elite live, work, and socialize in New York and Washington, the two cities that were attacked on 9/11, and whose elites - political, military, financial - were so genuinely traumatized by the events.

Anyway, that's just a small part of it, about how the elite media manufacture consent. Here's a final quote, one from the Moyers interview with Lofgren:

BILL MOYERS: If, as you write, the ideology of the Deep State is not democrat or republican, not left or right, what is it?

MIKE LOFGREN: It's an ideology. I just don't think we've named it. It's a kind of corporatism. Now, the actors in this drama tend to steer clear of social issues. They pretend to be merrily neutral servants of the state, giving the best advice possible on national security or financial matters. But they hold a very deep ideology of the Washington consensus at home, which is deregulation, outsourcing, de-industrialization and financialization. And they believe in American exceptionalism abroad, which is boots on the ground everywhere, it's our right to meddle everywhere in the world. And the result of that is perpetual war.

This can't last. We'd better hope it can't last. And we'd better hope it unwinds peacefully.

[Oct 01, 2016] If civilians can sue sovereign states it should be obvious to everybody that the drone maniacal US would be on top of the list of targets for such suits

Oct 01, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

DeDude : September 30, 2016 at 07:38 AM

Amazing how stupid congress can be. I know the politics that drove this mistake, but why did the leadership in congress allow this to be voted on?

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/29/politics/obama-911-veto-congressional-concerns/index.html

If civilians can sue sovereign states it should be obvious to everybody that the drone maniacal US would be on top of the list of targets for such suits. Our government and soldiers would be the most vulnerable in the whole world.

If our courts were to begin collections of judgments from sovereign states the results would be that no foreign government would want to hold assets in this country.

I certainly sympathize with the 9/11 victim families, although they have been compensated for their loss with way more money than any of the foreign collateral damage victims of our military actions.

The families may not understand this, but they will never collect a dime. On the other hand, this legislation to "help" them will do a lot of damage to the country and its soldiers.

How did sympathy for these families let our congress members trap themselves in such a stupendous blunder. I guess election season is a time for that kind of stuff.

reason -> DeDude... , Friday, September 30, 2016 at 07:52 AM
It is this sort of legislation that has made the US so hated around the world. The US just can't seem to internalize that being sovereign doesn't imply sovereignty over the rest of the world, that that sovereignty ends at the border.

As far as I know, the US is the only country that taxes its non-resident citizens. This alone is nuts.

The US is also as far as I know the only country that thinks it has the right to kill the citizens of other countries outside its borders.

And then it seems that many US citizens seem to think they are not bound by the rules of physics, or logic or arithmetic.

US exceptionalism has gone on long enough. It is about time the US came back to earth and decided it is just another country on earth.

efcdons -> reason ... , Friday, September 30, 2016 at 11:48 AM
"As far as I know, the US is the only country that taxes its non-resident citizens. This alone is nuts."

Why is that nuts? Do non-resident citizens no longer have access to consulate services? Does the citizenship lapse such that one can't come back to the US whenever they want?

The US keeps going while the citizen is abroad. It's not outrageous to ask them to contribute something (not much, the credit for overseas taxes paid is pretty high).

DeDude -> efcdons... , -1
We are the only ones that assume people will come back unless they renounce their citizenship.

It is only fair that you get taxed for the government services you receive. Therefore, you should be taxed in the country where you live. There is no justification for taxing income earned in a foreign country.

The value of consulate services are so small that it cost more to recover them than deliver them. So the rest of the world does not use that lame excuse to tax citizens living abroad.

[Sep 24, 2016] 9-11 Firefighter Blows WTC 7 Cover-Up Wide Open

Impressive interview
Notable quotes:
"... That guy knows what he's talking about. It's about time someone came forward with what may be true according to what he saw and knows. ..."
YouTube

Infowars reporter Lee Ann McAdoo talks to Rudy Dent, 32 year veteran of NYC fire department and the NYPD, about his incredible first hand experience of the lies surrounding WTC 7.

Jeanne O'Mara 13 hours ago

This retired fireman feels that it was a a controlled demolition. He has never heard of a high rise being brought down by a fire. There were other bldgs that were hit by debris from the burning towers. He was also suspicious that all the evidence from WTC 7 was taken away and sent to china.

The crime scene should have protected but wasn't. He believe as many now do that t was a "false Flag" operation to get people all riled up so they could get into react. He saw molten LAVA like pockets of steel which is like what you see when a volcano explodes. It's called pyroclastic flow. Thermite, a very special explosive was found and it can only be made a very specialized labs like Los Alamos.

The bush family has a very creepy history. Prescott Bush had holdings in a bank that funded the Nazis (Union Bank). It was seized by the CONGRESS. The Harrimans were also involved w this bank.

It's also clear that Bush Sr had a role in JFK's assassination. JFK had asked A. Harriman to negotiate w Vietnam and Harriman cross out that part. This was treason.

lora savage 1 week ago

That guy knows what he's talking about. It's about time someone came forward with what may be true according to what he saw and knows.

[Sep 24, 2016] 9 11 John Kerry admits that WTC7 was brought down by controlled demolition!

www.youtube.com
al murphy 1 year ago
9/11 is a cover-up and World Trade Center 7 collapse is the smoking gun. Why is that so?? WTC-7 fully collapsed in a manner that resembles a controlled demolition. For 2.25 seconds it collapsed at freefall and National Institute of Standards and Technology now admits this. In order for it to freefall for 2.25 seconds you need a uniform gap of approx. 80ft free of any physical impediments (equivalent of blowing out 7 floors almost instantaneously).

Fire is not magic and cannot do that and only can be precisely done through human intervention. It takes the prepositioning of demolition components that are finely timed throughout the building to accomplish this. WTC-7 had GOV agencies as part of its tenant (US Secret Service, CIA, IRS, DOD...) With tenants like that it is impossible for an outsider to get access to the building to preposition demolition components. Whoever did had to have their consent!

[Sep 14, 2016] the motives of which are transparently political and actually create disinformation around veritable realities

Notable quotes:
"... It's unclear how a jetliner is [more] powerful than an earthquake, and how, if such requirements failed to save the WTC towers, preparing for even more powerful earthquakes is going to prevent a recurrence of the same. ..."
"... The heavy, black smoke emanating from the structures belies your premise. ..."
Sep 12, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

JSM September 12, 2016 at 5:10 pm

No offense is meant but fewer articles from Ms. Scofield, please, with transparent, dubious, questionable, or propagandistic angles. The article 'How building design changed after 9/11' has been written annually for fifteen years.

"In fact, for years building codes from the American Society of Civil Engineers, the American Institute of Steel Construction and the American Concrete Institute have required structural supports to be designed with high enough ductility to withstand a major earthquake so rare its probability of happening is once every 2,000 years. "

It's unclear how a jetliner is [more] powerful than an earthquake, and how, if such requirements failed to save the WTC towers, preparing for even more powerful earthquakes is going to prevent a recurrence of the same.

This would also go for any articles entitled 'How the US Can Win the War in Syria' in which no objectives are articulated, non-evidential articles entitled 'U.S. Could Pay a High Price for Suing the Saudis,' any more New Yorker articles, the motives of which are transparently political and actually create disinformation around veritable realities, about 'Trump and the Truth', e.g. 'The Unemployment Rate Hoax,' etc. I'm sure posting links is largely a thankless job, but if I wanted to I could turn on CNN and 'learn' these very things.

Jess , September 12, 2016 at 6:31 pm

"In fact, for years building codes from the American Society of Civil Engineers, the American Institute of Steel Construction and the American Concrete Institute have required structural supports to be designed with high enough ductility to withstand a major earthquake so rare its probability of happening is once every 2,000 years."

Hate to break it to you, but earthquake forces - seismic events - are considerably different than thermal events. Granted, fire often erupt as a result of severed gas and electric lines caused by an earthquake, but an earthquake is a brief, violent, hard shaking or rolling. A high-rise fire of sustained intensity sits in one place and does its work within a confined setting. In the case of the multiple floors damaged by the impact of the planes in 9-11, that confined setting bore a striking resemblance to a combination blast furnace and chimney. (People tend to forget that skyscrapers tend to create their own wind patterns, in this case well over 500 feet high. Just like air being pumped into a fire by a bellows.

human -> Jess , September 12, 2016 at 8:47 pm

The heavy, black smoke emanating from the structures belies your premise.

MyLessThanPrimeBeef , September 12, 2016 at 10:17 pm

The second order partial differentiation equation* governing structure responding during a dynamic event like an earthquakes shows that the force on the structure is related to its mass.

The heavier a structure, the bigger force it is subjected to, going through the same quake.

The force of an impacting plane is same regardless of the building size, all else being equal.

*(mass x acceleration) + (damping coefficient x velocity) + (stiffness modulus x displacement) = zero.

[Sep 11, 2016] The Mysterious Collapse of WTC Building 7

Is this a plan of the elite to introduce national security state in action. Are they afraid of the collapse of neoliberal social order and try to take precautions?
Notable quotes:
"... These factors would have resulted in the structural framing furthest from the flames remaining intact and possessing its full structural integrity, i.e., strength and stiffness. ..."
"... the superstructure above would begin to lean in the direction of the burning side. ..."
"... Nevertheless, the ultimate failure mode would have been a toppling of the upper floors to one side-much like the topping of a tall redwood tree-not a concentric, vertical collapse. ..."
"... A reporter with rare access to the debris at ground zero "descended deep below street level to areas where underground fires still burned and steel flowed in molten streams." ..."
"... Please remember that firefighters sprayed millions of gallons of water on the fires, and also applied high-tech fire retardants. Specifically, 4 million gallons of water were dropped on Ground Zero within the first 10 days after September 11, according to the U.S. Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratories : ..."
"... Why would the Insiders bother blowing Building 7? Indeed, why would the Insiders bother with WTC at all? Exactly what were the motivations of the Insiders supposed to be? ..."
"... Larry Silverstein had a magic ball that told him to insure the buildings for "terrorist attacks". In February of 2002, Silverstein was awarded $861,000,000 for his insurance claims from Industrial Risk Insurers. His initial investment in WTC 7 was only $386,000,000. ..."
"... Perhaps after the first couple of attempted attacks on the WTC in the 90's they had a good look at what would happen if an attack was successful. Perhaps they then decided that the massive collateral damage from a partial or messy collapse could be greatly reduced by having the buildings ready to be brought down in a controlled way. ..."
"... All this would have to be kept secret as noone would work in a building lined with explosives. However the insurance companies, and the owner of the building would know, and this would explain the comments made by silverstein (comments that he himself never clarified). ..."
"... This may all be completely wrong, but lets face it, explosives did bring these buildings down. ..."
"... http://topdocumentaryfilms.com ...How about a 5 hour video that methodically refutes and explains the flaws of virtually every aspect of the 'official story', in particular the shamefully flawed NIST report ..."
"... There were no pyroclastic flows at WTC. That's obvious by the fact that pieces of intact paper lay everywhere, something that would be impossible if a hot cloud covered the area. ..."
"... The reason that you have to resort to esoteric explanations for what happened at WTC is that you believe lies about what happened at WTC. ..."
"... If you really believe that this was done by hydrocarbon based fires begun by burning jet fuel you are beyond hopeless. ..."
"... Why do you trust the government so much? That to me is idiotic. History has proven pretty much every government to be corrupt. It's sheep like you that allow them to get away with it. Just keep walking sheep, don't want to fall back from the mob. ..."
"... The "accepted scholarship" is conducted almost entirely by government shills for the benefit of dumbed down Americans whose information intake is limited to Fox, CNN, and MSNBC. ..."
Sep 15, 2012 | WashingtonsBlog

... ... ...

What Do the Experts Say?

What does the evidence show about the Solomon Brothers Building in Manhattan?

Numerous structural engineers – the people who know the most about office building vulnerabilities and accidents – say that the official explanation of why building 7 at the World Trade Center collapsed on 9/11 is "impossible", "defies common logic" and "violates the law of physics":

The collapse of WTC7 looks like it may have been the result of a controlled demolition. This should have been looked into as part of the original investigation

Photos of the steel, evidence about how the buildings collapsed, the unexplainable collapse of WTC 7, evidence of thermite in the debris as well as several other red flags, are quite troubling indications of well planned and controlled demolition

In my view, the chances of the three buildings collapsing symmetrically into their own footprint, at freefall speed, by any other means than by controlled demolition, are so remote that there is no other plausible explanation

Near-freefall collapse violates laws of physics. Fire induced collapse is not consistent with observed collapse mode . . . .

How did the structures collapse in near symmetrical fashion when the apparent precipitating causes were asymmetrical loading? The collapses defies common logic from an elementary structural engineering perspective.

***

Heat transmission (diffusion) through the steel members would have been irregular owing to differing sizes of the individual members; and, the temperature in the members would have dropped off precipitously the further away the steel was from the flames-just as the handle on a frying pan doesn't get hot at the same rate as the pan on the burner of the stove. These factors would have resulted in the structural framing furthest from the flames remaining intact and possessing its full structural integrity, i.e., strength and stiffness.

Structural steel is highly ductile, when subjected to compression and bending it buckles and bends long before reaching its tensile or shear capacity. Under the given assumptions, "if" the structure in the vicinity started to weaken, the superstructure above would begin to lean in the direction of the burning side. The opposite, intact, side of the building would resist toppling until the ultimate capacity of the structure was reached, at which point, a weak-link failure would undoubtedly occur. Nevertheless, the ultimate failure mode would have been a toppling of the upper floors to one side-much like the topping of a tall redwood tree-not a concentric, vertical collapse.

For this reason alone, I rejected the official explanation for the collapse .

We design and analyze buildings for the overturning stability to resist the lateral loads with the combination of the gravity loads. Any tall structure failure mode would be a fall over to its side. It is impossible that heavy steel columns could collapse at the fraction of the second within each story and subsequently at each floor below.We do not know the phenomenon of the high rise building to disintegrate internally faster than the free fall of the debris coming down from the top.

The engineering science and the law of physics simply doesn't know such possibility. Only very sophisticated controlled demolition can achieve such result, eliminating the natural dampening effect of the structural framing huge mass that should normally stop the partial collapse. The pancake theory is a fallacy, telling us that more and more energy would be generated to accelerate the collapse. Where would such energy would be coming from?

Fire and impact were insignificant in all three buildings [Again, please ignore any reference to the Twin Towers this essay focuses solely on WTC7]. Impossible for the three to collapse at free-fall speed. Laws of physics were not suspended on 9/11, unless proven otherwise

The symmetrical "collapse" due to asymmetrical damage is at odds with the principles of structural mechanics

It is virtually impossible for WTC building 7 to collapse as it did with the influence of sporadic fires. This collapse HAD to be planned

It is very suspicious that fire brought down Building 7 yet the Madrid hotel fire was still standing after 24 hours of fire. This is very suspicious to me because I design buildings for a living

The above is just a sample. Many other structural engineers have questioned the collapse of Building 7, as have numerous top experts in other relevant disciplines, including:

The collapse was too symmetrical to have been eccentrically generated. The destruction was symmetrically initiated to cause the buildings to implode as they did

Watch this short video on Building 7 by Architects and Engineers (ignore any reference to the Twin Towers, deaths on 9/11, or any other topics other than WTC7):

Fish In a Barrel

Poking holes in the government's spin on Building 7 is so easy that it is like shooting fish in a barrel.

As just one example, the spokesman for the government agency which says that the building collapsed due to fire said there was no molten metal at ground zero:


The facts are a wee bit different:

Please remember that firefighters sprayed millions of gallons of water on the fires, and also applied high-tech fire retardants. Specifically, 4 million gallons of water were dropped on Ground Zero within the first 10 days after September 11, according to the U.S. Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratories:

Approximately three million gallons of water were hosed on site in the fire-fighting efforts, and 1 million gallons fell as rainwater, between 9/11 and 9/21 .

The spraying continued for months afterward (the 10 day period was simply the timeframe in which the DOE was sampling). Enormous amounts of water were hosed on Ground Zero continuously, day and night:

"Firetrucks [sprayed] a nearly constant jet of water on [ground zero]. You couldn't even begin to imagine how much water was pumped in there," said Tom Manley of the Uniformed Firefighters Association, the largest fire department union. "It was like you were creating a giant lake."

This photograph may capture a sense of how wet the ground became due to the constant spraying:

murphy Arguments Regarding the Collapse of the World Trade Center Evaporate Upon Inspection
In addition, the fires were sprayed with thousands of gallons of high tech fire-retardants.

The fact that there were raging fires and molten metal even after the application of massive quantities of water and fire retardants shows how silly the government spokesman's claim is.

Again, this has nothing to do with "inside job" no one was killed in the collapse of Building 7, no wars were launched based on a rallying cry of "remember the Solomon Brothers building", and no civil liberties were lost based on a claim that we have to prevent future WTC7 tragedies.

It is merely meant to show that government folks sometimes lie even about issues tangentially related to 9/11.

Pooua > Wolfen Batroach • 2 years ago

Why would the Insiders bother blowing Building 7? Indeed, why would the Insiders bother with WTC at all? Exactly what were the motivations of the Insiders supposed to be?

JusticeFor911 > Pooua

Larry Silverstein had a magic ball that told him to insure the buildings for "terrorist attacks". In February of 2002, Silverstein was awarded $861,000,000 for his insurance claims from Industrial Risk Insurers. His initial investment in WTC 7 was only $386,000,000.

I'd say nearly half of $1,000,000,000.00 was the primary cause to include this building with the towers. Keep in mind that President Bush's brother Marvin was a principal in the company Securacom that provided security for the WTC, United Airlines and Dulles International Airport. Are dots connecting yet?

Pooua > JusticeFor911

If you buy a new car, you take out full coverage insurance on it. Insuring billion-dollar buildings is standard procedure, especially when one had already suffered a terrorist attack. You insinuation is nothing but gossip and suggestion.

No, Securacom did not provide security for WTC; that's the job of the Port Authority of NY & NJ. Securacom had a contract to perform a limited service for PANYNJ, and Marvin Bush was only a bit player (he was on the board of directors) in the company. Your paranoid ramblings are lies.

IBSHILLIN > Pooua

Perhaps after the first couple of attempted attacks on the WTC in the 90's they had a good look at what would happen if an attack was successful. Perhaps they then decided that the massive collateral damage from a partial or messy collapse could be greatly reduced by having the buildings ready to be brought down in a controlled way.

All this would have to be kept secret as noone would work in a building lined with explosives. However the insurance companies, and the owner of the building would know, and this would explain the comments made by silverstein (comments that he himself never clarified).

This may all be completely wrong, but lets face it, explosives did bring these buildings down.

Pooua > IBSHILLIN

I find it amazing that you consider yourself such an unquestionable expert that you not only feel qualified to insist that explosives brought down the WTC buildings, even in contradiction to scores of scientists, engineers and investigators of NIST, FEMA, FBI and MIT who say otherwise, and you do so without offering any evidence at all to support your bizarre claim.

No building the size of any of the WTC buildings has ever been brought down by controlled demolition, but of those that come closest, the planning took years, and the rigging took months of hard work by teams of experts working around the clock. This is not something that can be hidden.

Your suggestion is entirely preposterous and without merit.

ihaveabrain > Pooua

explain this? You are smarter than these experts? http://www.hulu.com/watch/4120...

NIST, FEMA, FBI and MIT are worthless entities! What about the experts in that documentary? Nanothermite brought them down smart guy!

Pooua > ihaveabrain • 25 days ago

You posted a 1.5-hour video. I am not here to watch a 1.5-hour video; I'm here to discuss the topic of the collapse of WTC 7. If you have something to say, say it here.

NIST has been the premier standards body used by the US government for a century, covering virtually every aspect of engineering and public safety in this country. It employes thousands of scientists, engineers and technicians. For you to claim that it is a worthless entity is idiocy on your part.

linked1 > Pooua • 24 days ago

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com ...How about a 5 hour video that methodically refutes and explains the flaws of virtually every aspect of the 'official story', in particular the shamefully flawed NIST report

You claim to want to discuss the topic of the collapse of WTC-7 but you can't be bothered to watch painstakingly researched documentaries that include thousands of witnesses, victims, scientists, and structural professionals.

You ought to educate yourself before calling other's claims 'worthless idiocy'. You are wrong, and history will prove you wrong.

Pooua > linked1

I've been reading arguments about 9/11 for two years. I've been arguing about other issues for the last 25 years, at least since I took a class in classical logic. What you need to understand is, you aren't arguing anything when you send me off to listen to someone else. The other guy might be arguing something, but you aren't doing anything. And, the fact that I've spent two years reading everything I could find on the subject makes me strongly suspect that this five-hour video would be just a waste of my time.

If you want to discuss this matter, then discuss it. Don't send me off to spend hours of my time listening to someone else. You explain it. If you can't explain it, then you don't understand it, and you are wasting everyone's time.

mulegino1 . > Pooua

The levels of energy required to turn most of the Twin Towers and WTC7 into nanoparticles (thus the pyrocastic flow which only occurs in volcanic eruptions and nuclear detonations) would be thousands of orders of magnitude greater than airliner impacts and hydrocarbon based office fires, which are claimed to have initiated a "gravity collapse".

How could a "gravity collapse" perfectly mimic the detonation of a small tactical nuclear device or devices-electromagnetic pulse, molten lava and a mushroom cloud?

Pooua > mulegino1

I want you to look at this image from the WTC on 9/11. It shows the debris after the Towers collapsed. Does this look like nanoparticles to you? Most of the debris was bigger than a man's fist.

Thumbnail

There were no pyroclastic flows at WTC. That's obvious by the fact that pieces of intact paper lay everywhere, something that would be impossible if a hot cloud covered the area.

The reason that you have to resort to esoteric explanations for what happened at WTC is that you believe lies about what happened at WTC.

mulegino1 . > Pooua

If you really believe that this was done by hydrocarbon based fires begun by burning jet fuel you are beyond hopeless.

There was indeed a pyroclasticas flow as anyone with youtube can determine for themselves.

Pooua > WilliamBinney • a year ago

It is your job to do more than make idiotic, speculative assertions and pretend that constitutes a reason for disregarding the government's account of the event. Yet, you all have completely failed to do anything except expose your own inability to account for the events of that day.

Dizzer13 > Pooua • a year ago

Why do you trust the government so much? That to me is idiotic. History has proven pretty much every government to be corrupt. It's sheep like you that allow them to get away with it. Just keep walking sheep, don't want to fall back from the mob.

mulegino1 . > Pooua • 2 years ago

The "accepted scholarship" is conducted almost entirely by government shills for the benefit of dumbed down Americans whose information intake is limited to Fox, CNN, and MSNBC.

The official narrative is so ludicrous from any standpoint that the "debunkers" resort to wildly implausible scenarios in order to convince the above cited demographic that the government and the major national media were reporting factual information when in fact they were reading from a script. And it was a very poorly written script. The Bin Laden bogeyman was already being invoked before the buildings exploded.

What you've got here is a pseudo-religious narrative designed to so enrage the dumbed down sheeple that they will lash out in their fury against virtually anyone designated by the powers that be as the enemy- a Sorelian myth.

Like any false narrative, the official story breaks down at the level of discrete facts and can only survive as a holistic mythologized, meta-historical events.

[Mar 19, 2015] '9-11 was an inside job' Full speech by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at UN

Sep 23, 2010 | youtube.com

[Mar 19, 2015] New 9-11 photos 'prove WTC exploded from inside'

Feb 11, 2010 | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NX_UKdqoa_o

New picture releases are shedding light on September 11th, some say they prove that the assault on America proves a homegrown attack. The new photos are provided by US national institute of standards and technology. There are over 2,000 new photos that have been made public. Manny Badillo says that you see an explosion from the inside, not what it has seemed to be, he says there has never been a building taken down by a plane.

[Mar 19, 2015] George W. Bush Confronted on 9-11 & war crimes in Florida!

[Mar 18, 2015] 9-11 Truth Judges shocked by first time seeing video of WTC 7 collapse in Denmark court

See also 10th Anniversary TV Ad - Remember Building 7 and Geraldo Rivera Does 911 Truth Segment About Building 7
Mar 18, 2015 | wtfrly.com

Three judges in Denmark watched in "astonishment" last week as they saw the collapse for the first time of World Trade Center Building 7, the third collapsed building in the September 11th attacks.

"We got the opportunity, for once, to present a video of World Trade Centre 7 collapsing, in court, … at that time I recognised a state of astonishment among the three judges…. I understand, as usual, that none of them had heard or seen the collapse of Building 7 before."

The exchange came as part of an appeal in the Eastern High Court in Copenhagen to a libel suit which was dismissed by a lower court. Niels Harrit sued over comments by Journalist Søren K. Villemoes calling him a "crackpot" over Harrit's description of the building's collapse.

The legal consideration at issue is whether the Weekendavisen journalist's statement was libellous, comparing Niels Harrit with creationists and holocaust deniers, but the presentation of evidence against collapse from fire is a key point. The video of the collapse was looped and shown 3 times during the case.

Harrit also highlighted to the judges the fact that the Building 7 collapse was not part of the official 9/11 Commission report.

He mentioned that the judges wanted to clearly understand his statements and he explained that the official investigation did not include analysis of the Building 7 collapse but part of a separate investigation years later.

9-11 & Iraq Revisited Remembering How We Were Lied Into War by Will Porter

September 19, 2014 | Antiwar.com

Since the cataclysmic events that took place on the morning of September 11th 2001, an extended series of consequences have unfolded with an alarming rapidity. Between vast escalations of military activity abroad, the passing of draconian laws, like the Patriot Act and the NDAA, the instituting of the Department of Homeland Security, and the ramping up of domestic spy programs through the NSA, 9/11 has served as a catalyst for a radical change in how America conducts itself both at home and around the world. In the weeks and months following the incident, the American people were bombarded with a veritable hurricane of bald-faced lies and assertions based on dubious "intelligence". Before they could begin to wrap their heads around the significance of the events taking place around them, their government had already set plans into motion to wage a decades-long military conflict in the Middle East, a conflict which rages at full force to this day. In fact, recent developments in Iraq regarding the Islamic State militant group, or ISIS, elevate the issue of the 2003 Iraq War to the highest importance.

Among the general populace, a widely-accepted narrative has developed which attempts to make sense of all that has happened since September 11th. Very broadly, the narrative contends that Islamic extremists have declared war on the United States, and this alone serves to explain and justify the long string of wars that have been waged in the name of the global "War on Terrorism" ever since. What's most surprising about the public narrative is that it offers almost no explanation at all of how or why Iraq was, directly or indirectly, implicated in the 2001 terror attacks on New York and DC. At best, the public storyline suggests only a vague connection between Saddam Hussein and the al-Qaeda terrorist organization. Any substantial explanation of this tie, however, has seemingly fallen away into the ethereal memory hole of American historical conscience.

Of the many oft-repeated talking points which comprise the terror war narrative, the question of the highest importance almost always goes unasked: why exactly did the United States wage war against Iraq in the first place? It is extremely peculiar that the largest-scale, most significant conflict to date in the war on terrorism has no widely-understood explanation. Those who have paid the highest price to initiate this war, the American people, seem to be the least informed on the matter. It is because of this lack of understanding regarding Iraq in particular that the terror war was ever able to get underway, and, indeed, build up a seemingly unstoppable momentum.

On this 13th anniversary of the September 11th attacks, which initiated the drive for war, it is vital to return to these basic questions. How did this happen? Who was involved? What justifications were given to go into Iraq in the first place? After more than a decade, the American people still cannot provide firm answers to such questions. To understand the broader war on terror, and how it came to dominate American foreign policy, it is necessary to fill in the blanks of the official narrative, as well as overturn some of the prevailing falsehoods about Iraq, WMDs, and its connection to al-Qaeda.

In basic terms, the official US government justification for the Iraq War goes something like this: Saddam Hussein was a material supporter of terrorist groups like al-Qaeda – particularly the Islamic militant Abu Musab Zarqawi – offering safe harbor and/or training facilities for them in Iraq. On top of this is the related claim that Hussein was actively pursuing "weapons of mass destruction," using "mobile bio-weapons labs," as well as "aluminum tubes" for centrifuges in a reconstituted nuclear weapons program. In his alleged link to militant Islam – and his ties to Palestine in the case of Zarqawi, a Jordan-born Palestinian – Saddam was said to have planned to provide Iraq's weapons to terrorists, who would act as his proxies. For these reasons, Iraq was said to be a threat to its neighbors, and a threat to the United States. These claims are officially stated in a 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), but also informally circulated in TV and print news media in the run up to the war.

While the Bush Administration explicitly refrained from directly accusing Saddam of complicity in the 9/11 attacks, they were certainly happy to let the American people believe there was a direct connection between the two. After all, many thought, why would the US ever wage a war against Iraq, seemingly as a result of 9/11, if Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11? Due to the disjointed and incoherent Administration narrative, and the mainstream media's willingness to freely speculate on all matters pertaining to 9/11, Iraq, and terror, the American people were left to rationalize and put two-and-two together on their own, often concluding that Saddam and September 11th were related.

The only explicit attempt to tie 9/11 to Iraq was in the claim that lead 9/11 hijacker, Mohammad Atta, made contact with Iraqi intelligence at a meeting in Prague. Later, additional allegations derived from "Israeli security sources" assert that an Iraqi agent furnished Atta with an "anthrax flask" at the same meeting. Some suggested also that Iraq was involved in the 2001 anthrax-letter attacks that took place shortly after 9/11, targeting media outlets as well as Senators Patrick Leahy and Thomas Daschle (who both, coincidentally, happened to oppose the invasion of Iraq). All the talk of anthrax, no matter how baseless, ultimately helped to terrorize the American people and warm them up to the idea of war with Iraq. Finally, but no less important, we have the documents, curiously supplied by an Italian intelligence agency (SISMI), which were claimed to prove Saddam's attempt to procure 500 tons of yellowcake uranium from Niger. Sprinkle in a little Wilsonian talk of "spreading democracy," and you've got yourself a war.

As we shall see, absolutely none of the casus belli presented to the American people had any resemblance to reality. Through a complex network of government officials – primarily connected to the Pentagon and the office of the Vice President – media pundits and journalists – such as Judith Miller, others at the New York Times, and the PNAC crowd at the Weekly Standard – as well as foreign sources – Iraqi ex-pats as well as Italian and Israeli intelligence – the Iraq War was set off without a hitch; built upon, in the words of Colin Powell, a "web of lies."

An essential link in the chain was the Pentagon-created Office of Special Plans (OSP). Established in 2002, this agency lies at the very heart of the War Party push to invade Iraq. Through this Office, headed by Abram Shulsky under the authority of Undersecretary for Policy Douglas Feith, "intelligence" was funneled into important or influential places, such as the office of Vice President Cheney via his Chief of Staff, Louis "Scooter" Libby. In one case, information was even directly leaked by Douglas Feith to Bill Kristol's neocon rag, the Weekly Standard, demonstrating, in part, the state-media complicity in misleading the American people. Additional players linked to the OSP, to name only a few, include NESA bureau head William Luti, Defense Policy Board members Richard Perle and former Republican Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, as well as neocon Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, whose prior informal intelligence activity with Feith was officially codified in the creation of the OSP. Its primary task was to dig through raw intelligence agency information, unaccompanied by the judgment of a professional analyst, in order to ham-fistedly piece together official justifications for war.

According to retired U.S. Air Force Lieutenant Colonel and former Pentagon desk officer Karen Kwiatkowski, who worked closely with senior Pentagon staff such as William Luti, higher-up officials in the OSP were "willing to exclude or marginalize intelligence products that did not fit the agenda." To that end, information disseminated from this office was carefully cherry-picked and highly exaggerated, with much of it gleaned from the Iraqi expat group the Iraqi National Congress (INC). Presiding over the INC was Ahmed Chalabi, essentially a double agent for the Ayatollah, who temporarily served a vital purpose for his neo-conservative dupes.

Chalabi dazzled neocons with talk of a future "Hashemite Kingdom" in Iraq (referring to Jordan; diplomatically and economically friendly with Israel). He was selected by administration war hawks as early as the Gulf War to lead the Iraqi political march to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Exiled from Iraq, and a convicted bank fraudster, Chalabi weaseled his way into high position in the post-Saddam Iraqi state after helping the Bush Administration successfully bamboozle their way in. Later on, to the horror of his former US colleagues, his trueloyalties were discovered, revealing an epic betrayal of the War Party in favor of his long-held Iranian connections. As an influential figure among pro-war ideologues, Chalabi was able to carefully sway events to Iran's benefit in ways which his neocon handlers were oblivious of. Despite this double-cross, it was Chalabi and his INC "heroes in error" who provided many of the intelligence sources that were vital in the push for invasion. For example, in a New York Times piece by Judith Miller, she cites a meeting, arranged by the INC, with an "Iraqi defector," claiming there to be "renovations at sites for chemical and nuclear arms" in Saddam's Iraq. With the popular news media parroting the government's claims, it helped to quickly move along the pro-war policy.

In the end, nothing regarding the claims of "aluminum tubes," initially insisted on by the CIA's WINPACcenter, was true. The same goes for the "arms sites" and "mobile weapons labs," both of which were sourced from Iraqi defectors. All of these talking points were, as well, used in Colin Powell's speech to the United Nations in February of 2003, a speech which was crucial in the green-lighting of the American-led coalition to invade Iraq. The lies in that speech, as well as the ones told in the 2002 NIE cited above, are officially debunked by a 2004 Senate Report (download PDF in link) which cites intelligence community conclusions on the various fraudulent claims. None of the information used to bolster the WMD story held any weight, and a large portion of the US intelligence community had said so all along. This was not just a big mistake, it was intelligence deliberately concocted, or presented wildly out of context, in order to send the nation (back) to war, to finish the job started in the 1991 Iraq conflict.

Official skepticism toward Bush Administration claims of Saddam's weapons, as well as his ties to terror is illustrated the leaked UK intelligence documents, known as the "Downing Street Memos". These memos depict high-ranking UK officials expressing concern over whether the Administration was "fixing" intelligence around a pro-war policy, rather than a policy around intelligence. Before, during, and after the war, there were a multitude of intelligence sources, as well as a fairly large body of journalism, which conveyed deep skepticism toward the dubious pro-war talking points. There certainly were dissenting voices in the lead up to the war; these voices simply went unheeded and unheard, at least until after the invasion. The mainstream media chose, instead, to create an echo chamber for the flurry of false claims emanating from the Bush Administration and the tightly-knit group of neo-conservatives in high office or positions of public influence.

Also proven false in the 2004 Senate Report are the allegations of Saddam attempting to purchase yellowcake uranium from the Nigerian government in 1999-2000. The documents passed along from Italian intelligence, in fact, turned out to be the crudest of forgeries! From October of 2002 to March of 2003, the CIA, as well as the IAEA, expressed doubts about the information contained in the documents, yet this didn't stop President Bush from invoking it in his State of the Union address of January 2003. Indeed, the CIA's skepticism was either discounted or completely circumnavigated in order to push this particular piece of intelligence.

Of much interest here is the 2005 La Republica exposé (translation) which explores the antics of one Rocco Martino, an Italian peddler of information who worked with Italian, and at times French, intelligence. Martino and a number of associates, looking for a quick way to make money, were able to use various intelligence assets to attain access to outdated Nigerian documents. Using official stamps and letterhead stolen from the Nigerian Embassy in Rome, this group of rapacious rogues crudely pieced together the stale documents to create the forgery, which they hoped to sell. They were initially handed off to SISMI and to the French, who quickly saw them for what they were. But much changed after 9/11 and the Bush Administration's mad scramble for Saddam-WMD intelligence. At this point, SISMI finds new willingness to share the documents with the CIA station in Rome, while Martino gives them over to British MI6. The information makes its way to the Bush Administration, where it is eventually used in the 2003 SOTU address in the form of sixteen ambiguous words. Following the rest of this story, with its possible ties to a police sting, Iran, Israel, and Michael Ledeen, will lead us down quite a deep rabbit-hole, which due to space limitations simply cannot be elaborated on here.

Finally it should also be briefly noted that the more recent scandal involving the outing of undercover agent Valerie Plame is heavily related to her husband's investigation of the forged Niger documents. The Wilson-Plame Niger investigation clearly probed too close to the truth, leading to an attempted career assassination at the behest of powerful people.

Another key example of botched intelligence is the claim of the meeting in Prague between Mohammad Atta and Iraqi intelligence, as well as the later attempt to link this meeting with anthrax. The Prague meeting was initially reported by Czech officials, although there were various conflicting accounts, where different Czech officials deny the meeting ever happened. An interesting parenthetical note, when Dick Cheney cited these reports in a TV interview to confirm the 9/11-Iraq tie, he refers to "Czechoslovakia," a country which had not existed since Czech-Slovak split in 1993. This certainly could have been a simple slip of the tongue, but it seems that, assuming Cheney himself had seen the Czech report, it'd be fresh enough in his mind to at least get the country's name right!

Mark Rossini, a former FBI counter-terrorism agent given the task of analyzing the Czech report on the Prague meeting, recalls his reaction to the Cheney interview: "I remember looking at the TV screen and saying, 'What did I just hear?' And I–first time in my life, I actually threw something at the television because I couldn't believe what I just heard." A 2006 Select Committee on Intelligence report repeats this conclusion, held among US intelligence circles, that the Prague meeting was dubious at best, definitely not solid enough base a military invasion on. Since this meeting likely never occurred, there is no need to provide further evidence to disprove the claim, sourced from "Israeli security," that a flask full of anthrax was given to Atta during the meeting.

Aside from the Prague-anthrax connection, further attempts were made to link the anthrax-letter attacks to both the 9/11 hijackers and, again, to Iraq. The letters themselves contained messages that were so deliberately suggestive of hijacker involvement that it strikes one as suspicious, proclaiming "09-11-01, this is next," and "Death to America, death to Israel." Bryan Ross at ABC repeatedly said, with increasing degrees of certainty, that it was very likely from Saddam Hussein's anthrax program. He sourced three or four unnamed "well placed people," which if true might suggest that Ross was purposely mislead by government agents who wished to anonymously disseminate false information.

Despite the massive FBI probe into the case, no definitive answers were ever provided as to who was responsible. The total incompetency of the FBI, however, didn't stop independent journalists from delving into the case themselves. From these investigations came a series of very strange discoveries, not the least of which was the likelihood that the specific anthrax strains used in the letter-attacks originated in US Army labs! Although two different people were selected as "fall-men," the baseless accusations against neither of them stuck. The second of the two, one Dr. Ayaad Assaad, an Egyptian-American scientist, worked at the Fort Detrick facility from which samples of anthrax, among other dangerous biological compounds, went missing years before the letter-attacks. In later, seemingly unrelated, events at Fort Detrick, Dr. Assaad's colleagues, primarily a group led by a man named Phillip Zack, engaged in bizarre and juvenile harassments against him. This same Phillip Zack was a suspect in a 1992 internal Army inquiry, thought to be making unauthorized access, by cover of night, to a biological compounds lab, where pathogens like anthrax, Ebola, and the Hanta virus had gone missing.

Moreover, in late September 2001, an anonymous letter sent to the FBI in Quantico, Virginia alleging that Dr. Assaad was behind a terrorist plot to use biological agents in the United States. This accusatory letter was sent after the anthrax-letters were mailed, but before they were discovered to contain anthrax. This suggests that some third-party, somebody other than Dr. Assaad, had foreknowledge of the attacks. Tying things together, in the missive accusing Assaad it is also stated that the author had formerly worked with him, demonstrating fairly extensive knowledge of Assaad's career at USAMRIID.

Although the true culprits of the 2001 anthrax-letter attacks remain a mystery, this highly peculiar series of events seems to suggest there is much more to the story than simply another act of terrorism perpetrated by the same group responsible for the 9/11 attacks (or Iraq, as Bryan Ross asserted). One might speculate that this Phillip Zack, or somebody closely related, had a hand in the anthrax-letters, based on his suspected past unauthorized access to pathogens labs, his proven hatred for Dr. Assaad, and the strange letter sent by an alleged former colleague of Assaad's, ascribing the guilt to him. There is more to be said about this long story, however what matters here is not the identity of the culprit, but the fact that despite almost zero solid evidence pointing to Iraq, nor to the 9/11 hijackers, influential people in the government and media were more than willing to accept such an event as a pretext for war; behind closed doors with the former, out in the open with the latter.

In the end, most of the high-ranking US officials involved in kicking off the Iraq invasion have subsequently come out to admit there were no WMDs, and no ties between Hussein and al-Qaeda. While they admit they made mistakes, most of them, unbelievably, deny they ever made claims about nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons. They also deny ever asserting there were ties between Saddam and al-Qaeda. Needless to say, there are mountains of direct evidence proving without a shadow of a doubt that these people are complete liars, guilty of the highest crimes against humanity imaginable.

The Iraq War has often been blamed on faulty intelligence alone, and for some of the people involved this may well be true. However, what's clear is that within the intelligence community itself, there was all along a basic consensus of the doubts regarding Bush Administration claims. The intelligence is not to be blamed, but those who wielded it in dishonest and outright corrupt ways.

What's more are the absolutely damning ties between the neocon cabal largely responsible for the war, and the Israeli foreign policy apparatus. There is a long and extensive history of neo-conservative groups' – especially the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) – involvement in the crafting of both Israeli and Americanpolicy, as well as garnering immense tax-dollar support for the Israeli state. Perhaps this is best illustrated in a 1996 Israeli policy paper entitled "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," authored by neocon figurehead David Wurmser, with signers-on Richard Perle and Douglas Feith, among others.

Here they outline a plan regarding how Israel should deal with its neighboring Arab states. Working with allies Jordan and Turkey, they hope to "contain, destabilize, and roll-back some of [Israel's] most dangerous threats." This includes countries like Syria, Lebanon, and Iran – most of whom the US has taken an increasingly aggressive posture toward. Iraq also is said to a valuable prize, with the removal of Saddam Hussein from power a priority. Indeed, for many years, long before 9/11, this very same group of hardline Israel-firsters sought to influence American policy toward war with Iraq as well, in large part to serve Israeli interests, alongside military-industrial ones. The 9/11 attacks were obviously used as justification to execute this plan, to get a regime change in Iraq. To these neocons, American and Israeli state-security interests are one in the same, certainly regarding Iraq, as well as the aggressive Zionism (illustrated in the "Yinon Plan") which characterizes Israeli policy, both domestic and foreign.

This incestuous neocon-Israeli involvement in the crafting of state-policy should, of course, come as no surprise. This is a well-known phenomenon, not any sort of speculative conspiracy fringe. Israel not only has long-standing ties with influential conservative movers-and-shakers in the foreign policy field, but also a history of deceptive and outright murderous behavior all around. From the decades of military occupation of the Palestinian people, the Israeli spying on American institutions, the multiple cases of Israeli (or Israel-related, through AIPAC) theft of sensitive US intelligence-related secrets, the theft of uranium in the 1950s to build nuclear bombs with, to their deliberate attempt to sink the USS Liberty in June of 1967, Israel has quite a deranged history indeed.

As with most matters of policy, the Iraq War was certainly not pushed by only one single set of interests. Things aren't so simple. The Israel-first neocon crowd had a very important role to play, but in the end this was a confluence of many inter-locking interest groups. Political campaigning, military-industrial interests, oil, and, especially in the case of Bush Jr., personal ambition; these also were part of the incentive-structure for a pro-war policy. All of the people responsible for this war did not necessarily have to be unified in a grand conspiracy in order to push for the same policy-objective. Indeed, it just goes to show the way in which disparate and varying interest groups can come together in agreement where their individual motivations and values meet. It is sometimes easy to ascribe a collective agency to government actors, but these are still human beings we're speaking of here. Each individual, in reality, acts according to the values placed on his own given ends in the situation he finds himself in.

I have hardly even begun to broach the voluminous content of the Iraq War chronicles, but this short review should alone serve to prove the case. The United States government, or rather a militant clique within its most powerful and influential agencies, sent this nation to war, based on fraudulent pretexts, with a largely disarmed and impoverished adversary. Between the 1990s sanctions, which lead to the deaths of 500,000 children, the one million people killed in the war of 2003, and many more millions displaced – their homes in ruin and their lives destroyed – the toll taken on the Iraqi people has been devastating. From 1990-2012, it is estimated 2-3 million Iraqis were killed or died, due to the economic sanctions, the two wars waged by the US government, and the Civil War which broke out during the second occupation.

Let us never forget how easily this happened, as we are faced with yet anotherattempt to send troops to Iraq. For almost a half-century now, the United States has constantly intervened in Iraq, and to what avail? Of all the trillions of dollars, the millions of lives, the rivers of blood poured into the country, it has only given rise to the most brutal, out of control problem to date: the Islamic State. ISIS is currently rampaging across Iraq and Syria, taking entire swaths of territory and proclaiming the establishment of a long-sought Islamic Caliphate.

As the United States, with its Mid-East allies the Turks and Saudis, continues to funnel material support to the "moderate" anti-Assad rebels in Syria, they fund and back precisely the same people they claim to oppose in Iraq. The anti-Assad rebels and the pro-caliphate jihadists are, in many cases, the very same militant groups. Considering these issues, it is long, long, overdue that the American people and, less likely, the politicians who make US policy, reexamine the issue of the Middle East, and the long-standing practice of US foreign intervention in general. If 50 years of failed policy, the colossal waste of money and resources, as well as the resulting blowback can't teach us this lesson, I do not know what ever would.

At least encouraging was the strong majority stance of the American people to absolutely reject the notion of US military involvement in Syria around September of last year. But for any hope to avoid future bloodshed and destruction, it is vital that we internalize the lessons of the past. We must abandon the idea that history began last week, and always return to the past in order to inform our knowledge of the present and the future. For that reason, after the anniversary of the most horrific example of blowback this country has ever seen, let us never forget Iraq.

A special thank you is reserved for independent researcher, author, and filmmaker RyanDawson. Both his film "War by Deception" and his personal correspondence were invaluable. Another big thanks to radio show host Scott Horton, who took the time to go over this essay and offer many needed resources and corrections.

Recommended Links

Google matched content

Softpanorama Recommended

Top articles

[Sep 22, 2019] More Americans Questioning Official 9-11 Story As New Evidence Contradicts Official Narrative by Whitney Webb Published on Sep 22, 2019 | www.unz.com

[Sep 11, 2019] Video Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 The Bamboozle Has Captured Us Published on Sep 11, 2019 | www.globalresearch.ca

[Nov 12, 2018] Protecting Americans from foreign influence, smells with COINTELPRO. Structural witch-hunt effect like during the McCarthy era is designed to supress decent to neoliberal oligarcy by Andre Damon and Joseph Kishore Published on Feb 20, 2018 | www.wsws.org

[Sep 02, 2018] Open letter to President Trump concerning the consequences of 11 September 2001 by Thierry Meyssan Published on Aug 30, 2018 | www.voltairenet.org

[Aug 08, 2018] Ten Bombshell Revelations From Seymour Hersh's New Autobiography Published on Aug 08, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Sites

YouTube videos



Etc

Society

Groupthink : Two Party System as Polyarchy : Corruption of Regulators : Bureaucracies : Understanding Micromanagers and Control Freaks : Toxic Managers :   Harvard Mafia : Diplomatic Communication : Surviving a Bad Performance Review : Insufficient Retirement Funds as Immanent Problem of Neoliberal Regime : PseudoScience : Who Rules America : Neoliberalism  : The Iron Law of Oligarchy : Libertarian Philosophy

Quotes

War and Peace : Skeptical Finance : John Kenneth Galbraith :Talleyrand : Oscar Wilde : Otto Von Bismarck : Keynes : George Carlin : Skeptics : Propaganda  : SE quotes : Language Design and Programming Quotes : Random IT-related quotesSomerset Maugham : Marcus Aurelius : Kurt Vonnegut : Eric Hoffer : Winston Churchill : Napoleon Bonaparte : Ambrose BierceBernard Shaw : Mark Twain Quotes

Bulletin:

Vol 25, No.12 (December, 2013) Rational Fools vs. Efficient Crooks The efficient markets hypothesis : Political Skeptic Bulletin, 2013 : Unemployment Bulletin, 2010 :  Vol 23, No.10 (October, 2011) An observation about corporate security departments : Slightly Skeptical Euromaydan Chronicles, June 2014 : Greenspan legacy bulletin, 2008 : Vol 25, No.10 (October, 2013) Cryptolocker Trojan (Win32/Crilock.A) : Vol 25, No.08 (August, 2013) Cloud providers as intelligence collection hubs : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2010 : Inequality Bulletin, 2009 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2008 : Copyleft Problems Bulletin, 2004 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2011 : Energy Bulletin, 2010 : Malware Protection Bulletin, 2010 : Vol 26, No.1 (January, 2013) Object-Oriented Cult : Political Skeptic Bulletin, 2011 : Vol 23, No.11 (November, 2011) Softpanorama classification of sysadmin horror stories : Vol 25, No.05 (May, 2013) Corporate bullshit as a communication method  : Vol 25, No.06 (June, 2013) A Note on the Relationship of Brooks Law and Conway Law

History:

Fifty glorious years (1950-2000): the triumph of the US computer engineering : Donald Knuth : TAoCP and its Influence of Computer Science : Richard Stallman : Linus Torvalds  : Larry Wall  : John K. Ousterhout : CTSS : Multix OS Unix History : Unix shell history : VI editor : History of pipes concept : Solaris : MS DOSProgramming Languages History : PL/1 : Simula 67 : C : History of GCC developmentScripting Languages : Perl history   : OS History : Mail : DNS : SSH : CPU Instruction Sets : SPARC systems 1987-2006 : Norton Commander : Norton Utilities : Norton Ghost : Frontpage history : Malware Defense History : GNU Screen : OSS early history

Classic books:

The Peter Principle : Parkinson Law : 1984 : The Mythical Man-MonthHow to Solve It by George Polya : The Art of Computer Programming : The Elements of Programming Style : The Unix Hater’s Handbook : The Jargon file : The True Believer : Programming Pearls : The Good Soldier Svejk : The Power Elite

Most popular humor pages:

Manifest of the Softpanorama IT Slacker Society : Ten Commandments of the IT Slackers Society : Computer Humor Collection : BSD Logo Story : The Cuckoo's Egg : IT Slang : C++ Humor : ARE YOU A BBS ADDICT? : The Perl Purity Test : Object oriented programmers of all nations : Financial Humor : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2008 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2010 : The Most Comprehensive Collection of Editor-related Humor : Programming Language Humor : Goldman Sachs related humor : Greenspan humor : C Humor : Scripting Humor : Real Programmers Humor : Web Humor : GPL-related Humor : OFM Humor : Politically Incorrect Humor : IDS Humor : "Linux Sucks" Humor : Russian Musical Humor : Best Russian Programmer Humor : Microsoft plans to buy Catholic Church : Richard Stallman Related Humor : Admin Humor : Perl-related Humor : Linus Torvalds Related humor : PseudoScience Related Humor : Networking Humor : Shell Humor : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2011 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2012 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2013 : Java Humor : Software Engineering Humor : Sun Solaris Related Humor : Education Humor : IBM Humor : Assembler-related Humor : VIM Humor : Computer Viruses Humor : Bright tomorrow is rescheduled to a day after tomorrow : Classic Computer Humor

The Last but not Least Technology is dominated by two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt. Ph.D


Copyright © 1996-2021 by Softpanorama Society. www.softpanorama.org was initially created as a service to the (now defunct) UN Sustainable Development Networking Programme (SDNP) without any remuneration. This document is an industrial compilation designed and created exclusively for educational use and is distributed under the Softpanorama Content License. Original materials copyright belong to respective owners. Quotes are made for educational purposes only in compliance with the fair use doctrine.

FAIR USE NOTICE This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.

This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free) site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...

You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors of this site

Disclaimer:

The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or referenced source) and are not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society. We do not warrant the correctness of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without Javascript.

Last modified: September, 28, 2020