WCT7 and the moral vacuum

You might wonder WTH any of the following has to do with 911 but I think it has a lot to do with it and explains much. Looking for the answer to the question of “why 911 occurred” and its corollary “how could they do this”, we’re inevitably brought face to face with evil and that means different things to different people.

On one level were the Muslim terrorists themselves and how they were allowed to roam freely, being a known known, just like with Beslan and just like the other side in Oslo, when the spooks knew but sat back and allowed these people to do their worst – for their own reasons.

Once you accept that WCT7 imploded, and I reached this conclusion after one, two, three and four, then the question of who had access, over what time period and why throws up all sorts of possibilities, one of them being money and another – power. Revenge is another and not just Muslim revenge – Zionist revenge and the revenge of haters of humankind on the people.

What was involved with WTC7?

This comes from multiple sources, many of which you’ve read yourself. The advantage I have is that I’m coming to this for the first time, not having had TV or radio for decades and having been overseas at the time. I’ve never really looked at 911 in depth and so, in many cases, I’m discovering what you already know.

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.

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.

WTC7′s developer and lease-holder, Silverstein Properties, and WTC7′s mortgage-holders, the Blackstone Group, Bank 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.

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. ’

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.

“In the month that lapsed between the terrorist attacks and the deployment of the FEMA Building Performance Assessment Team [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. Fortunately, an NSF-funded independent researcher, recognizing that valuable evidence was being destroyed, attempted to intervene with the City of New York to save the valuable artifacts, but the city was unwilling to suspend the recycling contract.” [Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives, March 6, 2002]

Steel and debris from the site was sent to Fresh Kills where it was examined and sifted. As the Department of Sanitation could no longer handle the steel with their equipment, and … engineers thought the steel would destabilize the landfill, DDC received verbal permission to ship the steel to New Jersey. By the end of June 2002, over 1.6 million tons of steel and other debris were removed from the site.

“[O]n September 28, the New York Times learned that the city was recycling the steel. When the Times contacted Kenneth R. Holden, commissioner of the Department of Design and Construction, he said that no one from the investigative team had asked him to keep or inspect the steel. The ASCE, it turned out, had faxed a request, but to the wrong fax machine. Late that afternoon, after reporters shuttled the correct fax number to the ASCE, Holden said that a request had finally reached him.”

Mayor Giuliani had been asked to halt the removal but his office did not respond to these requests. Commissioner Kenneth R. Holden … was given an award in 2002 by the AIA New York Chapter after he had overseen the criminal destruction of the steel from the World Trade Center.

No shortage of suspects

I might be wrong but I don’t personally buy that they brought down the centre to destroy records – that could have been done many other ways. Brought it down for profit? That’s more of a possibility.

I think my idea is crazier than any of those – it was on a whim that the idea occurred to someone and the plan evolved from that, On another level, it was to demonstrate something to people.

At the risk of oversimplifying and being jingoistic, two truisms – that “money is the root of all evil” and “fire is a good servant but a bad master” – still hold true. When we lose sight of our humanity and lose ourselves in the pursuit of money and power, then we’re on the road to being controlled.

When I was in Russia, if you walked along a street and could hear people’s conversations, the number of times “dengi” or money came into it might have surprised you – it wasn’t far from anyone’s lips.

So it’s a double-whammy – if you’re one of the well-heeled, you crave for more, to get you a little higher in the pecking order and if you’re poor, you crave it to get you out of your chains. I believe that that’s where we’re headed again now, more starkly, with no comfortable middle-class remaining and everyone – elite and serfs alike – as slaves to money and power.

That paves the way for inhumane mindsets, as seen in the horrible things people are doing to each other today – killing an ex-gf for a cooked meal [did you see that?] or road rage or whatever. And one commenter on that killer wrote:

Look at her face then look at him grinning as he enters court knowing what he did. Then tell my why we should not bring back hanging.

All I would add to that is “then look at him grinning like Rebekah Brooks as he enters court”. Ina moral vacuum, sociopathy will become rampant, beginning with the young, who then age and become dangerous.

Also, in a moral vacuum, a sense of entitlement and victimhood are never far from the surface and it’s the next step to go the way of this man – with a penchant that now knows no disdain in such communities and so the worst excesses take place. DSK is a perfect example, even if he is innocent of that particular Sofitel rap. As for this French socialist:

In 1975, so still living in Germany, the Franco-German Europe-Ecologie MEP Daniel Cohn-Bendit who worked for a time as a teacher’s aide in a creche in Frankfurt, wrote a book called Le Grand Bazar, in which he described his teacher’s aide experiences at the crèche. This is a quote from the book, wherein he describes his sexualisation of his young charges, who ranged from the ages of 1 to 6:

‘”It happened on several occasions that certain kids opened my fly and started to tickle me. I reacted in a certain manner, depending on the circumstances. I would ask them, ‘Why don’t you play together? Why did you choose me — me — instead of the other kids?’ But they would insist, and I would caress them all the same.”

No, I’m not suggesting that all socialists are like that – just those with elitist pretensions and this includes all political hues. When you get to the top, either through money or power, then you are susceptible to this very much, to this moral vacuum, where you see yourself as the one to make his or her mark on the world.

In one of the Father Brown books, the Hammer of God, a churchman climbs to the top of the belltower and, leaning over, sees his libertine brother below. From up there, he sees the people below as ants and his brother as one of the more uppity ones, prancing around like a miniscule buffoon. So, filled with his distorted perspective, he throws down a small hammer but it is enough to split the skull of hi brother.

That was a churchman but what if it is a Daniel Cohn-Bendit or a DSK, with a moral compass which should never see the light of day? Couple that with sociopathy and it’s a dangerous person who “rules” us, whose lifestyle is the fast lane and the jetset, in the finest of suits and consuming the finest of food and wine. From a post on the Frankfurt School, home to diseased spirits:

The essential difference between the Marxist idealist and the Frankfurter is that the latter, at some stage in the process, either was already or became morally bankrupt. The social conditions they were insidiously striving for, their personal lives [read about Huxley and Marcuse] and their goals were not altruistic, not in the least, despite being tricked out in language to suck in the average undergrad punter.

And Jesse – is he mad or right? Has he overstepped the mark?

Not all sociopaths wield knives and knotted cords. Some wear suits, and are exceptionally intelligent and articulate, obsessively driven, and are able to use and undermine the law and the rules for their advantage, like weapons. It is never about the win, never about the money. It is about the kill, the expression of their hatred, about elevating themselves with the suffering of others.

Bind, torture, kill. Not only with ropes and knives, but also with power and money, and the subversion of law. Lawlessness is their addiction, their will to power.

In the end what they want is to fill the hole in their being, which has tormented them from childhood, by destroying others, and to differentiate themselves from all those other lower beings whom they hold in contempt. They find no commonality with human happiness and the normal life, because of the hatred they have for themselves, and their sense of alienation from all that is human. Their compulsion is to rape and destroy.

When societies become lax and complacent, these sociopaths can possess great political power through great amounts of unprincipled money. And over time they become almost anti-human, destroyers of all that is good, all that is life, all that offends their insatiable sickness with its goodness. They twist the public against itself, and turn a broad sweep of society into their killing grounds.

This is the undeniable lesson of the last century. There are monsters, and they walk among us.

Bring down towers which are not needed, are corroding and need replacement, at huge cost? This is the perfect way to deal with it … and at a profit. Pin it on the phobia of the moment – Islamophobia and the Arabs – and it serves many ends. The Muslim world gets its revenge, the people of the U.S.A. are outraged, those at the top rake in the profit and deny it to others and all is well, as far as they can see – a win-win situation.

The carnage is a necessary step along the way to achieve their ends. Raedwald wrote on that, though I doubt he’d concur with my take on 911.

72 comments for “WCT7 and the moral vacuum

  1. Sackerson
    July 29, 2011 at 6:27 am

    “killing an ex-gf for a cooked meal” – from what I’ve read, it’s about resentment at rejection, this breakfast line was just a distracting newspaper angle.

    Discussing the Norway case yesterday with a friend, the issue came up, do we think we are “beyond good and evil”? Debate about wicked acts these days reduces to sane/insane and alternative value systems, e.g. if Breivik had been an Islamic terrorist I don’t think his lawyer would find it so potentially useful to say that his client was mad.

    Is evil merely as defined in relation to a particular value system, or (as I think e.g. you and Jesse feel) a real entity?

    • July 29, 2011 at 6:45 am

      this breakfast line was just a distracting newspaper angle

      Whatever angle it was, did he murder her with a rock to her skull or didn’t he?

      On the Oslo biz – this is just as much a political beat-up as Hacked off, which Labour is pushing. Which is not to excuse what the man did in any way, shape or form. My attitude is in a post tomorrow morning at my place.

    • Jeremy Poynton
      July 29, 2011 at 1:41 pm

      Moral relativism – a key element in the Leftist credo. Very nasty indeed.

  2. DSD
    July 29, 2011 at 8:36 am

    ‘Zionist revenge’ – wow, let’s hope whoever actually runs this blog cans your arse ASAP, you deranged Nazi muppet. I sure as hell won’t be linking to it while it again continues to entertain your presence. You’re a disgrace.

    • July 29, 2011 at 8:57 am

      James is one of those who run this blog. I am another. As you may notice, we disagree on this point.

    • July 29, 2011 at 11:46 am

      I didn’t say it was a Zionist revenge. If you read carefully, I mentioned it as one of the many theories, for why, once you concede that the building was imploded.

      Or do you set your expertise against that of demolition experts? I’m for believing the demolition experts, and that’s before the evidence of those four posts, which I guarantee you didn’t bother to read

      How quickly we get the arse-end of things through failing to read what is written.

      It’s also interesting, DSD, that my blog is seen as a pro-Israeli space for all the posts pro-Israel. However, I don’t expect you to know that. On the issue of the phosphorous, I took the Israeli side and also think the flotilla is absolute guff.

  3. July 29, 2011 at 8:56 am

    …though I doubt he’d concur with my take on 911.

    That goes for me, too. Sorry, but the conspiracy stuff is guff. Nothing to see here.

    Sure, there are sociopaths in our midst and some of them reach high office. Nothing new in that. However, there is no credible evidence that the US government, its agencies or the owners of the buildings murdered their own citizens despite what the makers of Loose Change might want us to believe.

    I have to say that conspiracy theories really undermine what we are doing here. When we point out genuine, provable malfeasance on the part of those who would steal our liberties, our opponents will point straight back to the conspiracy theories and laugh.

    As I’ve said before, the mundane, the banal and the coincidence have more credibility than snippets of conversation taken out of context and given new intent by those who would see demons in every shadow. There are real issues to be worried about – such as the DNA database and another U turn on the part of the coalition. Not this, sorry.

    • July 29, 2011 at 11:55 am

      I have to say that conspiracy theories really undermine what we are doing here.

      Even you, Longrider, are left with the question why, once it’s established, which it has been, over four posts, that the building imploded in a controlled demolition. I’m not talking about some half-arsed looked at the arguments from one side – I’m talking about putting the debunkers and the sceptics who take the evidence as it is and the conclusion as to whether it’s a controlled demoilition or not is not even a question.

      So you’re then left with, “Why?”

      Now, the easy answer is that the building was in danger of collapse. Part of it from floors 10-13 on the south side were in serious disrepair. Not many stop to ask why. However, let’s pass over that.

      So, the most un-conspiracy theorist answer is that they got in there and those firemen put in the required explosive to do the job. Whoever rigged the building did a grand job, by the way. It collapsed perfectly into its own footprint.

      Now, anything else after this – thinking it was the Muslims, the Zionists, whatever, is going to be a theory, as I wrote. For those who can look dispassionately, instead of chanting the mantra that no one ever colludes, no one ever joins with anyone to do anything and there has never been anything called a false flag anywhere in the world by anyone – anyone who is looking at it dispassionately is going to need an explanation.

      To say those Muslims did that unbeknowns to anyone, when they’re even on the effing record as having been watched, just like Breivik and just like the Muslims at Beslan is to be in heavy denial of what’s already on the record.

      • July 29, 2011 at 12:19 pm

        But I’m not asking “why”.

        • July 29, 2011 at 2:21 pm

          No, I can see that. 😉

          • July 30, 2011 at 9:38 am

            It’s because I don’t care – much like SH. A case of “nothing to see here.”

      • July 30, 2011 at 9:33 am

        Well, this is a big surprise from James, eh?

        Are you sure that the demolition wasn’t carried out by LPUK leaders who had been trained by Common Purpose and paid by the EU, James?

        You nutter.


        P.S. The whole controlled demolition has been debunked many times—e.g., in this entire website—and in a report by qualified engineers.

        • July 30, 2011 at 9:40 am

          You forgot the Frankfurt School :mrgreen:

          PS – can we steer clear of the ad homs please. This thread does seem to be bringing them out.

          • July 30, 2011 at 12:36 pm

            Well said, after all, everyone’s entitled to a ‘blind spot’ somewhere; it doesn’t mean that everything else they believe is automatically ‘suspect’…

            Which reminds me, have I ever told you about the Antarctic entrance to our hollow earth and the wonderful society therein..? :mrgreen:

        • Revolution Harry
          July 30, 2011 at 2:59 pm

          Nutter? Sigh.

          Can you please link me to the report by qualified engineers?

    • Smoking Hot
      July 29, 2011 at 11:57 am

      Well said Longrider. l avoid the subject and certainly won’t get into a discussion about it for fear of breaking my computer as l bang my head repeatedly on the keyboard. 😀

  4. Robert Edwards
    July 29, 2011 at 9:07 am

    I hate to disagree with James, but FFS!

    I’ll get my coat. And my tinfoil hat…

    PS – I think ‘deranged Nazi muppet’ although elegant, is a bit of a stretch…

    • July 29, 2011 at 9:39 am

      I think ‘deranged Nazi muppet’ although elegant, is a bit of a stretch…

      Given the context of the original comment, yes, I agree.

      • July 29, 2011 at 12:00 pm

        As I said before, how quickly we jump to conclusions and get it arse-end round, instead of actually reading what was said.

        To save you reading those four posts, all that was established was that WTC7 clearly imploded in a controlled manner. And that’s all. End of story.

        I never wrote anywhere that it was the government, nor do I believe it was – they’re so incompetent, they’d get their hair caught in the wringer. They’re also puppets.

        Three Presidents in the United States said that the power was not in the government but in an element which remains in the shadows. Longrider effectively says they’re wrong. Unless LR is actually secretly in government and knows those presidents are wrong, then I’m going with what they said.

        Even then, I’m not sheeting it home to Them. I put a perfectly simple explanation – money, as the answer to why.

        Naturally, no one will apologize to me for getting what I said wrong but I’m used to that by now.

        • July 29, 2011 at 12:22 pm

          So, I’m part of the conspiracy too, eh? 😉 Not the first time I’ve been accused. A paycheck would be nice. 😀

          • July 29, 2011 at 12:27 pm

            Did anyone say that? Seriously – look at your words. If you are denying conspiracy, which is a theory in itself – therefore you’re just as much a theorist as some, but you’re not part of any conspiracy theory because you and some others were the ones who introduced the word into the discussion.

            I didn’t.

            I simply said the evidence [as shown in posts 2 to 4, linked at the top of this post], demonstrates that WTC7 imploded in a controlled demolition and I gave much evidence for that.

            I certainly didn’t bring in the words tinfoil hat or conspiracy theory – that was other people’s baggage. Nor ahve I bothered even gracing those words with a reply because they have zero with following the evidence where it leads.

  5. Wolfie
    July 29, 2011 at 9:15 am
    • July 29, 2011 at 9:39 am


      • July 29, 2011 at 12:00 pm

        Yes, good but what has it to do with WTC7?

  6. July 29, 2011 at 9:44 am

    “Once you accept that WCT7 imploded…”

    A lot of the conspiracy theories seem to hinge on this, as if it’s impossible for a building to ‘implode’ other than by human intervention.

    • July 29, 2011 at 9:53 am

      Such as two adjacent buildings collapsing nearby along with the flying debris, fires and vortex caused by the collapse, maybe?

      • July 29, 2011 at 12:29 pm

        You don’t need maybes or speculation. Read posts 2 to 4 and it’s in there.

        • July 29, 2011 at 12:32 pm

          There’s nothing to speculate. Unless there is clear, verifiable evidence of malfeasance – and no one has produced any – then, the most likely explanation is the most obvious and banal.

        • July 29, 2011 at 5:08 pm

          Read ’em, and afraid I’m still not convinced. Nice collection of clips but so have the other side so for non-experts who you believe is a choice. My choice is influenced by the shaving equipment of Occam and Hanlon. But frankly I think you’re really reaching for something that just ain’t there with the ‘pull it’ business. In that context it sounds to me like referring to pulling the plug on the operation, not pulling the building down.

          • July 29, 2011 at 5:28 pm

            ” Nice collection of clips but so have the other side so for non-experts who you believe is a choice.”

            It’s rather like the use of ‘expert witnesses’ in court cases – you got yours, I got mine, and it comes down to who can convince a jury.

          • July 29, 2011 at 7:28 pm

            Exactly, Julia. And I’m sure we can all think of a few occasions where an expert witness has witnessed very expertly in court, only much later to turn out to have been 100% wrong.

          • July 29, 2011 at 7:34 pm

            Roy Meadows, anyone?

          • July 29, 2011 at 8:32 pm

            Sorry but “read ’em” doesn’t mean a whole lot when you already declared your stance before that, AE, on other posts, vis-a-vis “conspiracy theory”. And Julia, in this case, “the otehr side” do not have arguments which stand up on WTC7.

            I went right through the debunkers to see if they actually had something. Thought they did with the cables and “other explanation” for pull but the man who made the comment was right all along.

            Sometimes there’s a thing called Occam’s Razor and it states you should just accept the simple explanation because it’s more likely to be right.

            All the evidence points to CD, the expert said CD, the men on the ground said CD, the owner said CD.

            The idea of desperately trying to find anotehr explanation for “pull” when it’s right there in front of you is highly amusing.

            You see, what this is really about is a determination never to concede, despite the evidence because you know very well, guys, that if you concede CD, then other things must follow, even if I haven’t made a big deal about these yet. 😉

          • July 31, 2011 at 10:29 am

            Sorry but “read ‘em” doesn’t mean a whole lot when you already declared your stance before that, AE, on other posts, vis-a-vis “conspiracy theory”.

            I’m always willing to change my mind when presented with something concrete, James. I was once a convinced warble gloaming believer before I was shown how many holes there are in that theory. Are there holes in the official narrative for 9/11? Yeah, sure, but not many and not massive, whereas I’ve yet to see an alternative theory which doesn’t appear to me to have even more or larger holes. I followed the links with an open mind and saw nothing that was more convincing than the official explanation. If true most would exist on a knife edge, requiring just the slightest thing to happen that was not planned for (or vice versa) for the whole plot to be blown wide open – the most important of which is the lifelong silence of absolutely everyone involved. The risk/reward ratio isn’t much of a tempter, is it?

            Sometimes there’s a thing called Occam’s Razor and it states you should just accept the simple explanation because it’s more likely to be right.

            Yes, mate, I keep bringing it up. In its original form it warns against unnecessary multiplication of entities. Now, which theory does that least, the official one that suggests lunatic religious nutjobs or one of the alternatives that suggest a false flag to create a casus belli and demolishing buildings just in case planes crashing into them doesn’t do the job, and then blowing up a third just in case the first two weren’t convincing and/or monetary gain sideline (assuming the money made is greater than the amount needed to buy all the silence necessary to keep a lid on it)? To my mind Occam’s Razor suggests the former, not the latter.

            I also keep bringing up Hanlon’s Razor: never ascribe to malice (or conspiracy as it’s sometimes put) that which can be explained by incompetence. And of course incompetence is what governments do best. They certainly try to do conspiracy stuff now and then – Watergate, Iran-Contra, sexed-up dossiers about non-existent yellowcake uranium, ‘Smeargate’, take your pick – but invariably they screw it up or someone opens their mouth and it all comes out. Generally this seems to take not more than 2-3 years and sometimes not that long. And here we are ten years on and, if 9/11 was a conspiracy of anything other than a bunch of religious loons, that nobody has yet blown it is nothing short of miraculous. I wouldn’t be surprised if for a junior level conspirator there’s potentially more to be gained now by coming forward than there is in staying silent (immunity from prosecution would be almost a formality for this), and yet not a single one has done so. There might be explanations for that, but referring back to Occam again the simplest explanation for no one coming forward is that there is no one to come forward.

    • July 29, 2011 at 12:06 pm



      What do you make of the demolition expert insisting, with a guffaw, that of course it was a controlled implosion?

      You’re more expert than he is on demolition, yes? Or perhaps you’re more interested in ignoring that and sticking to your autodenials?

      It was clearly a CD and that’s as far as this goes.

      • July 29, 2011 at 12:20 pm

        You’re more expert than he is on demolition, yes?

        I’m not. Neither are firefighters.

        • July 29, 2011 at 2:25 pm

          a demolition expert is though. That’s why such people are called in, in a similar way to which Red Adaire was called in for fires on oil rigs. In otehr words, it’s the man’s living.

          Now because I’m not desperately trying to shore up an exploded argument, I’m much freer to pursue where the sum total of evidence points. In other words, I’ll follow leads on any side of the argument, which I did in posts 2-4 and go from there.

          That’s why I wrote in this post – there are any number of theories. The implosion of WTC7 was provable to the point where a court of law would be satisfied. All the rest isn’t as clear and so I steer clear of it.

          • July 29, 2011 at 5:41 pm

            “In otehr words, it’s the man’s living.”

            And so, maybe he’s a little too close to it, and starting to see what isn’t there?

          • Lord T
            July 29, 2011 at 8:51 pm

            And so, maybe he’s a little too close to it, and starting to see what isn’t there?

            Put this here because couldn’t tag on the comment.


            You just saved UK gov a fortune. We no longer need experts to do anything because they are too close to the problems. We just need amateurs to work out how to fix our financial issues and work out what caused train and plane crashes. 🙂

          • July 29, 2011 at 10:17 pm

            You just saved UK gov a fortune. We no longer need experts to do anything because they are too close to the problems. We just need amateurs to work out how to fix our financial issues and work out what caused train and plane crashes. 🙂

            This chap wasn’t there. He was basing his opinions on viewing some video footage. And that’s all it is; opinion. Experts will often disagree and have differing opinions on the same issue. This is not the same thing as a forensic investigation into root causes as happens following a rail or air crash.

          • July 29, 2011 at 10:48 pm

            At some point, LR, you do need to concede that a man might know his stuff. If he’d sniffed and said, “Of course it didn’t CD,” I wonder if you would accept his word. 😉

          • July 30, 2011 at 9:23 am

            I would accept his word if he was honest enough to say “I don’t have enough evidence here to make a reliable judgement”.

            Some bloke giving his opinion on youtube is not evidence of anything. I repeat – it is an opinion. Opinion is not evidence. It doesn’t matter how you try to come back at this, that fact remains.

    • July 31, 2011 at 10:31 am

      OK, AE – see how I do tomorrow evening with the post on it here. Cheers for those comments.

  7. Robert Edwards
    July 29, 2011 at 10:04 am

    I knew those buildings well and used to go to breakfast there, at the ‘windows on the world’, usually with a rather sinister sugar trader. The building always terrified me. You had to change elevators at around about the 44th floor. The architect, I understand, was a Japanese gentleman and had designed the structure as being ‘earthquake proof’. Well, it worked. For any structure to survive such a massive shock is a tribute to the designer. I believe he was called Minoru Yamasaki.

    Well, God bless him, because if the same thing had happened to the Empire State building, or the Chrysler tower, then all the inhabitants would have been fucked…

    • July 29, 2011 at 10:21 am

      …usually with a rather sinister sugar trader.

      Sounds intriguing… I’m sure there’s the basis for a storyline there.

  8. Robert Edwards
    July 29, 2011 at 10:52 am

    He was actually a nice guy, but a fierce trader. One of my tasks was to finance his margin calls – Oh! Not Again…” He was the first man I’d ever met who wore nail polish. It’s a Sicilian thing, apparently. He was called Aldo. I hope he survived.

  9. July 29, 2011 at 12:36 pm

    Did anyone say that? Seriously – look at your words.

    I was pulling your leg, nothing more. I was accused of being a Zionist conspirator by some twat who flew by my blog a few months back. It’s nonsense of course. Just as it’s nonsense to suggest that because I don’t buy the conspiracy theories that I’m indulging in one myself. The absence of a theory is not itself a theory.

    I’m not interested in theories. I am interested in verifiable evidence that shows us facts. Until then, I am really not that interested in theories.

    And I return to my original point here – that this undermines our attacks on behaviour that we can prove and is happening now.

    • July 29, 2011 at 12:44 pm

      I am interested in verifiable evidence that shows us facts

      On the question of the CD of WTC7, this is provided in ample measure in posts 2-4 at my place, linked from the top of this post. But let’s just leave you with 4 questions of my own:

      My questions

      1. Do you have reason to suppose this man is not an expert?
      2. Do courts not bring in expert independent testimony to establish the truth of a matter?
      3. What do you think of what he says?


      4. After that, what do you say about this audio from inside the building at the time?


      As you say, “verifiable evidence” is better than ad hominems and that’s why I always give it if asked.

      • July 29, 2011 at 12:53 pm

        1 – I cannot say. However, based upon some video footage he is making a series of assertions, some of which are pure guesswork and fantasy. This is not evidence. He wasn’t there and there is no forensic evidence to support his assertions.

        2 – Indeed they do and the defence will bring in their own witnesses to undermine the prosecution’s witness. So what?

        3 – a series of assertions, nothing more.

        Do you understand what I mean by verifiable evidence? If this man had access to forensic evidence, you might have a point here. Otherwise this is just more truther stuff that proves nothing.

        • July 29, 2011 at 1:17 pm

          One can lead a horse to water …

          If you won’t look at the evidence and you deny the man is an expert, then there’s no debate, is there. this is precisely what we accuse the left of doing.


          • July 29, 2011 at 1:28 pm

            James, it is not evidence, it is opinion. There is a huge difference. His expertise or otherwise doesn’t alter that. That’s why I asked if you understood what I meant by verifiable evidence.

  10. Antony
    July 29, 2011 at 1:07 pm

    I think I am with James on this one.

    I offer this aerial photo of the aftermath -:


    You will note buildings 4, 5 and 6 suffered major damage being in the footprint of the towers and did not collapse. You will note the P.O. and Verizon buildings were exposed to the same risk of damage, rubble, vortexes and fire and yet suffer barely a scratch.

    In fact, you can see that none of the surrounding buildings suffer major damage. And yet we are meant to accept that WTC7 suffered such major damage that the internal steel support frame gave way at all significant structural points at the same time to cause – if you look at it outside of this context – a rather elegant, symmetrical collapse?

    • Revolution Harry
      July 30, 2011 at 2:44 pm

      “And yet we are meant to accept that WTC7 suffered such major damage that the internal steel support frame gave way at all significant structural points at the same time to cause – if you look at it outside of this context – a rather elegant, symmetrical collapse?”

      Exactly. Be careful though. DK might call you a nutter.

      • July 30, 2011 at 3:08 pm

        We are not meant to accept anything. This collapse is without precedent. The conspiracy theorists want us to accept that people deliberately set and ignited explosives while there were victims and rescuers still inside the building. That is stretching reasoning beyond its natural elasticity.

        Evidence, please…

        Actually, no, I’ve lost patience with this guff. And I’ve better things to do with my time that wade through even more daft youtube clips.

        PS – regrading the “nutter” comment. I’ve already responded to that one. So can we give it a rest, please?

        • Revolution Harry
          July 30, 2011 at 4:28 pm

          Sorry but accepting that ‘WTC7 suffered such major damage that the internal steel support frame gave way at all significant structural points at the same time to cause … a rather elegant, symmetrical collapse’ is exactly what we are being asked to do.

          There were no victims and rescuers in WTC7 when it fell apart from one, disputed, government agent. It was supposed to have been fully evacuated.

          I can, though, sense where your resistance to accept anything other than the official version lies. You think that it’s ‘stretching reasoning beyond its natural elasticity’ that anyone would bring down the twin towers while ‘there were victims and rescuers still inside the building’. I am long way past realising that it isn’t.

  11. July 29, 2011 at 1:10 pm

    Here’s a bonus one, at no extra charge. A debunker:


    … took the point of view that there wasn’t an implosion because they were even attaching cables to the building to bring it down:

    “We’ve got the cables attached in four different locations going up. Now they’re pulling the building to the north. It’s not every day you try to pull down a eight story building with cables.”

    The debunkers actual words on this were:

    This is yet another example of outright deception by the so called “truth” movement and its leaders like Alex Jones. They draw their stories around the truth like a child drawing around their hand.

    Seems to be contagious, doesn’t it, this tone? 😉

    That looked like good evidence against controlled explosions for a bit, until you looked at the “8 storey” bit. WTC7 was not 8 storeys – it was 47.

    Not only that but the very fact that they were attaching cables shows an intent to at least keep the building upright. Why would it need to be upright? Because the south side was gutted, the north side wasn’t and the stairwells were fine inside until one of the lifts stuck.

    So this only happened in the last minutes before the collapse and if it was fire which had caused this jamming, then it hadn’t consumed the firefighters, hence their continued audio.

    So the story of total conflagration simply doesn’t hold up. As LR says, “verifiable evidence”. 😉

    Obviously, they weren’t going to “pull the building down” sideways because it would have hit other buildings. Therefore the only way was to bring it down on itself. Now even from the debunker’s site, he gives more than enough evidence that there was an intent to bring it down. Even Silverstein said it.

    That’s what I meant by verifiable evidence. After the evidence, you can then apply a bit of common sense. What do you do if one side of a building is gutted and buckling and the other is relatively fine plus inside is OK?

    You attach cables, don’t you, to keep the north side up. And then? You carry out a controlled implosion so that it collapses onto its own footprint.

    What is so difficult about that? Any emergency team worth its salt would act that way.


    1. Deniers come in with “deranged nazi puppet” as a response to this.
    2. The government report denies any of this ever happened.

    And the answer remains – why?

    • Smoking Hot
      July 29, 2011 at 1:32 pm

      Actually, in my case the answer is ‘l don’t care’

      • July 29, 2011 at 3:00 pm

        Fair enough. 🙂

        By the way, I’d like to thank DSD, who’s given me an addition to my testimonial page:

        # Let’s hope whoever actually runs this blog cans your arse ASAP, you deranged Nazi muppet. I sure as hell won’t be linking to it while it again continues to entertain your presence. You’re a disgrace. [DSD]

        Perhaps I can get myself banned – DSD seems to like doing that. Let me quote another one, from a lefty:


        # The Higham fellow is a pathetic, sick individual. He embodies every bit of superstitious belief, ritual, taboo, violence, viciousness, exploitation, and ignorance of any creed known to man. What an ignorant philistine he is. Imprecate vocabulary always is. [Tovarishch Will]

        I’d had the temerity, at the time, to ask Will to actually substantiate his remarks and give some evidence – any evidence actually.

        By the way, think our ad hominem rule went a little astray here today but not to worry. Let’s all press on.

  12. Lord T
    July 29, 2011 at 8:22 pm

    I bet the Nazis decried those that called the Reichstag a government set up tin hatters.

    Note : I’m not saying that all the theories are correct but some of them need questions answered and the people answering them are not really people we trust.

    It is too easy to just reject them as conspiracy theories and ignore them. That is what they rely on.

    • July 29, 2011 at 8:55 pm

      I concede that the main reason I was suspicious was the criticism, roundly applied by everyone from sceptics to the CFR [whom you’d hardly expect to go against a Warren Commission style report] to the NTCR:


      The lying bastards were desperate to bury this thing and trod on evidence all along the line, e.g. shipping out the steel before it could be tested and despite calls for it not to be.

      Now that alone stinks. This is not really between debunkers and sceptics but between the NTCR/NIST and sceptics.

      Interesting also that all you guys and gals out there who are perfectly happy to call out the NPCC [a fashionable cause], balk at the NTCR, which everyone concedes has glaring inaccuracies [unfashionable cause], as does NIST.

      You might be happy, guys, to unquestioningly lap up what the government tells you is the truth but I, for one, would prefer to find out the facts independently, although we all know the government would never ever lie to us on anything.

      Guess I’ll just have to oppose you government supporters alone [sob].

      Just saying like.

      • Revolution Harry
        July 30, 2011 at 3:08 pm

        You’re not on your own James, not by a long way.

        Interestingly, when you look at all aspects of ‘9/11’ there are many more anomalies worth exploring. When you do explore them, in detail, you realise there is another way of describing some of your antagonists above. That is as coincidence theorists.

        ‘Unquestioningly lapping up what the government tells you is the truth’ is just as good though.

        Keep up the good work.

        • July 30, 2011 at 3:11 pm

          ‘Unquestioningly lapping up what the government tells you is the truth’

          That’s a non sequitur. Not believing the wild theories of the truther does not equate to accepting everything government says. Frankly, a pox on both their houses – I don’t have any time for either of them.

          • Revolution Harry
            July 30, 2011 at 4:32 pm

            Restricting this to 9/11 which part of the official, government, story do you disagree with then?

        • July 30, 2011 at 4:02 pm

          “Interestingly, when you look at all aspects of ’9/11′ there are many more anomalies…”

          That’s not ‘proof of conspiracies’, though; it’s just proof that life is messy and unplanned and mysterious and you can’t know everything.

          Take the Moorgate train disaster – no-one will ever know why it happened, but everyone’s got a theory, some tragic, some sinister…

          • Revolution Harry
            July 30, 2011 at 4:34 pm

            Not really because the anomalies go a long way towards proving that, at the very least, the official story is untrue.

        • July 30, 2011 at 6:35 pm

          Harry – it’s richards like DK who:

          1. try to broaden something beyond what it was – I dealt with WTC7 and only with WTC7. I put certain arguments and they have not been refuted. It was a CD.
          2. give only abuse and generalized statements instead of argument.

          Now, will a real scholar step forward please and refute point by point, as I keep asking, e.g. how do you explain the audio inside building 7 immediately prior to the fall? E.g. how do you explain Silverstein and the cables? Every explanation so far has no held up.

          I’m not broadening it beyond WTC7. On Monday I’ll look again at the link DK provided, see where WTC7 is mentioned [and nothing else] and answer it point by point.

  13. July 30, 2011 at 6:12 pm

    Disappointing about DK but it’s not the first time he answers arguments with abuse. This is the sign of a man who has no argument but only bluster – Neil dealt with him. Exhibit 1:


    The whole controlled demolition has been debunked many times

    Actually no – that debunking has been debunked and this is what has been shown in three of the four linked posts. Pity that’s DK’s style because I’d have preferred the points I made taken apart one by one. So far all there’s been is personal, summary abuse from that side and arguments from mine. I say summary because no attempt is made to answer point by point. Amutual friend, Mr Eugenides used to do debating. Perhaps DK could pick up some pointers from him.

    I’ll refrain from calling him and u**er a***ho** because that would be descending to his own level of abuse.

    Always the way, is it not? Very good at the bluster, DK. Not so good at the constructed argument.


    Very tired tonight, visitors tomorrow but on Monday I’ll take apart that pile of faeces he laughably presents as a “debunking”.

    “Come let us reason together.” LOL.

  14. July 30, 2011 at 10:21 pm

    Just had a quick look through the homepage and the key page of DK’s:


    Oh boy, this is so full of holes, I’m licking my lips at having a go at that. Such attempts at legitimacy – “peer reviewed papers” instead of “unsubstantiated assertion”. Plenty of “it may have been” instead of “it was”. That alone has red flags all over it.


  15. DSD
    July 31, 2011 at 8:31 am

    Oh James sweetie, would you care to pop back to Longrider’s thread and do that whole “I didn’t mean I actually think the Jews did it, honestly” thing? Or here would do nicely, thanks. It’d be nice to know if I was unfairly maligning you or not, and like I said, I’m quite prepared to apologise if you’ll refute the idea publically.

    • July 31, 2011 at 9:05 am

      I very much do refute it and need no apology. In fact, I enjoyed it and put it in my testimonials. 😉

      It was a theory put forward and I mentioned it in the context of Muslim theories, theories of Them etc. I haven’t started to look at any of that yet, concentrating only on WTC7 at the moment – post coming up Monday evening.

  16. DSD
    July 31, 2011 at 9:30 pm

    Very well, then you have my unreserved apology for misunderstanding your intent with that line.


Comments are closed.