As Voltaire said, those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities

At the 10 year anniversary of 9.11, I have to come out and admit that I just don’t believe the official version of events; I don’t see how the evidence justifies the account that was used as the launch pad to fight two wars off of – not to mention what has become known as “kinetic military action” in Pakistan and Yemen, which receives little notice in corporate media no matter how many wedding parties are incinerated by US drones.

From another angle, it is the very existence of all the war that was triggered by 9.11 that, in terms of grand strategy, suggest that the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon were an opening gambit in a plan for geopolitical dominance by Western “muscular” liberal interventionist governments. If we in the West can say that the corporate interests that our governments really represent are benefitting from what has spewn forth, then the 9.11 atrocity was very likely part of the design.

It’s not as if false flag attacks do not have historical precedence, and it must be obvious that they would be especially convenient in countries where an electorate is under the impression that their government, who now wants to turn its assets towards belligerence, is representative of them; why stir up the deep seated anaesthesia with an act of unprovoked aggression?  Even Hitler must have been nervous of causing such a shock of realisation. A man who had flummoxed and then frightened Germans into not being desirous of issuing final approval of their government ever again (similar to how we are being hoodwinked into a totalitarianism, ironically by devices which are the legacy of 9.11, and that will eventually be reinforced with deadly force) got German SS to dress up as Polish and attack a site at Gleiwitz on the home side of the border.

The Tap blog recently had a very entertaining post which was very accommodating of a 9.11 theory that holds that it was a remote control drone, not a commercial passenger airplane, that crashed into the south tower of the WTC. The image of the plane was only later added by computer onto any and all footage of the impact (which means, you will note, that any amateur video ever in existence would have had to be tracked down and sequestered – but then again, the people are conditioned by now into instinctively handing their material to the corporate media, aren’t they?).

What the doctored footage is said to be hiding is a ball shaped drone, and an aberration in the rendering of the image is meant to account for the infamous and unexplained node on the undercarriage of Flight 175; a growth that we do know that Boeing had been ordered by the FBI not to discuss.

Of course, the big flaw with the theory is that it is based on footage that shows a spherical object descending at speed towards the south tower, and if something as detailed as a plane can be added to a movie after the fact, then so can a run of the mill, glitter ball UFO.

The drone theory is not one that makes it into the book that I have been reading, 9.11. The New Evidence, by Ian Henshall, which has been so helpful to me in clarifying discrepancies between official evidence considered by the 9.11. Commission and other evidence that for some reason (a-hem) it did not consider, and what is feasible, and between all those things and the official story.

As the book makes clear, spectacular science fiction conspiracy theories are not required to doubt that the WTC and the Pentagon were attacked by Jihadists. Much has been made of the World Trade Centre Building 7 which offers some really compelling evidence for an inside job, and I’ve included some video at the bottom of this post of some of the main movers in what we can loosely call a 9.11 truth movement discussing this and other incredible events that are supposed to convince us of the orthodoxy. However, hints at the truth lay all about us in the most conspicuous places (like that mysterious debris on the Pentagon lawn that proved a greater priority than attending to any wounded for government men as they rushed about, headless-chicken like, to gather it up).

Consider, for instance, how very difficult it must be to pilot a modern passenger jet airplane, at speed, into the low lying Pentagon building, or how tricky it must be to steer one at what looks like a matchstick from 5 miles out and with less than half a minute from impact.

Indeed, as Henshall points out in his book, flying at around 555mph, Flights 11 and 175 would be a mile away from their targets, and 5 seconds away from collision; “an error of a few degrees of arc or a fluctuation in side wind, and [either] plane would miss”.

Likewise, very experienced pilots have pointed out that Flight 77 was more likely to crash into the ground before it hit the Pentagon. It’s not to say that any feat of piloting that was performed that day was impossible, but that it was only likely for a skilled pilot. Indeed, it is extremely likely that the poor abilities of the Jihadists would have rendered them unable to accomplish the task. Consider, for instance, how in June 2001, Hanjour, pilot of Flight 77, “tried to fly down the Hudson corridor as a trainee, but the instructor was so unnerved by his lack of skill that he refused a second run.” (Henshall)

The official narrative does indeed have enough gaping holes in it even for some serious people to be concerned. Political analyst – but constitutionalist first and foremost – Judge Andrew Napolitano is a heavyweight name. Even Ron Paul backs calls for a fresh enquiry. But most significantly are the huge numbers of “deniers” in the public who are families of 9.11 victims, and first responders on the day. Recently, a survey was commissioned by Remember Building 7, a transparency group led by 9/11 family members, NYC Coalition for Accountability Now (NYC CAN) and Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth). The poll found that 48 percent of New Yorkers were in favour of the Manhattan District Attorney or New York City Council opening a new investigation into the collapse of WTC 7. Even in 2006, a New York Times/CBS News poll found that 53% of Americans thought that the Bush government was hiding something about 9.11 and the intelligence prior to the attacks, while 28% thought that it was mostly lying.

It is quite evident that there is more than enough doubt around to make the intentions of UK and US governments to teach 9.11 in schools as factual history look decidedly sinister. Boris Johnson, sometimes touted as a replacement for Dave to do things expected of a conservative, but actually, a perennial moron, launched the UK’s own initiative the other day. It’s a move that makes it look as though the Establishment is playing a banker for the future and doing what all despotisms do – indoctrinate the children. The process of establishing the orthodox history in this way rather mirrors the attempts to establish the orthodoxy regarding global warming – a proven fantasy, and a scam by which to steal from us. But frightening and worrying kiddies makes a fantasy real in the physical world, and as Voltaire pointed out, believing absurdity makes you prone to committing atrocity. Our children have for a long while been trained for this less than auspicious future, whatever specific form it is to take.

That the 9.11 narrative is going to be taught at schools at a time when there are more people than ever questioning it provides another glimpse of the rot underneath the peeling whitewash on the facade that is British representative government. As another plank in the deck of the ghost-ship of state pings through another rusty nail, and peels back to reveal holes down through the superstructure to the hull, don’t worry – we can’t be taking on water and sinking because the government is telling us that we aren’t, and more importantly, teaching it to the kids.




43 comments for “As Voltaire said, those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities

  1. September 10, 2011 at 8:05 am

    As I’ve asked James, if it was a set up to create a casus belli why go so far? Was that really the minimum necessary to ensure the outcome you want? I don’t think so. For one thing the hijacked planes and the Pentagon and WTC crashes on their own would have sufficiently outraged America and generated enough sympathy in the rest of the world. The rest was overkill. For another the outcome is not assured since the plan doesn’t appear to have a contingency for the possibility that the Taliban would say “Oh, you want Osama? He’s in his cave right now. Just bear with us a mo, we’ll go and get him for you.” In fact I saw somewhere recently (if I ever get round to organising my bookmarks properly I might even have a link) that this very nearly happened and the Taliban said they’d hand him over if presented with prima facie evidence, and the main reason they didn’t and that the war went ahead was America wanted Osama now, goddammit, now.

    Happily for our theory America’s leadership at the time was not a model of patience but this took place only 8 months into a new presidency when it would still have been relatively hard to predict how the new guy would react to a given situation. Wouldn’t it have made more sense to carry it out near the end of a term when you’ve had three years to assess the guy and tailor the details of your plan to suit? I’d have aimed for late 03 /early 04. Or late 99 / early 00. Unless the 00 election result was also a fix and part of the plan was to make sure George W Bush was the president at the time? I’m sure it’s been suggested but I’d have thought changing dates two years in either direction would have been a lot easier than fixing the election and it’s still a bit of a gamble anyway.

    Follow up questions: how do you ensure it doesn’t leak before you even begin? Lots of people needed (lots more if you’re fixing the election too) and you have to trust every single one of them and each needs to trust you and all the others with a secret that could get the whole lot of you executed. Do you pay hush money? How much and to how many? If it’s all up front you risk someone doing a runner with it and risking the whole operation, but if a large chunk is promised for later you risk someone thinking that maybe they’ll be killed and the money taken back so blowing the whistle is their best option. Is this still your least effort option to provoke sufficient outrage among the American people that they’ll support war? Or could you achieve that level of anger using a handful of guys and a small amount of readily available black market explosives to inflict casualties and destroy something which Americans are hugely emotional about at a time when it would really insult them, e.g. the Vietnam memorial on Veterans Day or the Washington monument on Independence Day? Assuming you decide that no, you really do need to knock a big hole in the Pentagon, down four airliners and level an entire city block in New York, and nothing less will do, you’re still left with the problem that if past conspiracies are any guide the risk of leaking is high. Nixon couldn’t even get five guys to break into an apartment without them being arrested within a month and the sale of weapons to Iran by the Reagan administration only took four or five years to come out. This needs to remain secret forever unless the conspirators are prepared to die for it, which of course in the generally accepted version of events they really were being religious fanatics who thought they were martyring themselves. Your conspiracy needs at least a similar number of people, though probably rather more, and with a similar level of motivation since they may end up getting a lethal injection if one of their number buys his life and freedom by selling the rest of you out.

    • luikkerland
      September 10, 2011 at 11:39 am

      Thanks for taking time to make your comment. I don’t have answers, I have only questions, and this is why I don’t believe the official narrative; just as I don’t believe the official narrative regards Global Warming (I am a racist now, according to Al Gore, as well as a holocaust denier – and a lunatic to boot). I recommended a book that explains the use of drills and compartmentalisation (and the threat of death, of course) to establish a command structure for carrying out false flag attacks. People should at least read such material – and make up their own minds, of course.

      • September 10, 2011 at 1:17 pm

        I too am asking questions, and the official narrative has plausible answers for them. In roughly the order I put the same questions to you they are:

        * Objective?
        Hurt America, wound its pride, frighten its citizens and possibly provoke a stupidly expensive military response by causing a lot of damage to iconic landmarks.
        * Why down the towers?
        Probably unintentional as far as they were concerned but a bonus if they did fall. WTF, the more damage the better.
        * What if the US fails to strike back?
        No big deal since the other objectives would have still been achieved.
        * Why late 01 rather ±2 years?
        Doesn’t matter to the terrorists who’s president and when they took over. Why would they give a rip?
        * How do co-conspirators know they can trust each other not to blab beforehand?
        Because everyone involved is a similarly suicidally religious fucknuts.
        * How much money is needed to buy silence?
        None. Money has no interest to them.
        * Will co-conspirators worry about dying?
        See above about all being suicidally religious fucknuts – they’ll worry about not dying.
        * How is silence to be maintained after the event?
        Firstly, dead men tell no tales and all the people carrying it out will be dead, and secondly why would they care if it gets out? Success is not dependent on anyone involved keeping shtum afterwards.
        * Is this the least needed to guarantee the desired results?
        No, probably not. Doubtless they’d have set off a nuke if they could have but capability is the limiting factor. Nicking a few planes and crashing them is simply the most they’re capable of.
        * What about getting executed if caught?
        See above about being willing if not eager to die.

        The same questions that lack answers when asked of the conspiracy theories have simple, plausible answers when asked of the official narrative. Occam’s and Hanlon’s Razors remain pointing the way of the loony terrorists with a strong dash of government ineptitude.

      • September 19, 2011 at 10:03 am

        I have come to this very late but it’s an excellent post and my view is well known. Like you, Luikkerland, I have only questions, not answers. All we can do is to present what we have and hope for the best.

        This, as you say, is decidedly worrying:

        It is quite evident that there is more than enough doubt around to make the intentions of UK and US governments to teach 9.11 in schools as factual history look decidedly sinister.

        I do apologize for not coming back to this earlier but it’s here now.

        • luikkerland
          September 19, 2011 at 2:17 pm

          No worries. You have identified the main point.

  2. September 10, 2011 at 9:45 am

    A remote controlled drone? I’ve heard some daft theories about this one – and have been deliberately avoiding the recent discussion, but, really…

    So the US government hijacked and murdered plane loads of people and then used a drone for the actual attacks? Seriously?


    • luikkerland
      September 10, 2011 at 11:56 am

      I notice that you exemplify bunkum with the theory that I myself signify is flawed.

      Having witnessed 10 years of war, and the degrading and invasive security being rolled out across the USA, and now the reclassification as patriots, libertarians and constitutionalists as terrorists – all as a legacy of 9.11, I am now ready to believe that the murder of a relatively few of its own citizens would be small beer for a US Establishment looking to pull off a bigger crime of abolishing liberty to cement its own control and permanency – the latest measure towards this end being the star chamber super congress.

      • September 10, 2011 at 12:14 pm

        It’s the first time I’ve seen that particular theory and “bunkum” is the most polite expression I could find.

        As for 9/11 being a false flag. Nope. Not even remotely. Too complicated. A false flag operation to be successful would need a very small amount of people involved operating a simple plan. This was none of those. Nor was it necessary. Iraq was already on the cards with the weapons of mass destruction bollocks. Afghanistan was entirely unnecessary, but 9/11 provided a convenient excuse.

        The invasions of liberty that followed are evidence of opportunism not malice aforethought. The authorities are always open to an excuse when it presents itself. They don’t need false flag operations – indeed, they don’t really need actual attacks at all. In the UK we had the Ricin plot. There was no plot and no ricin. No need for any false flags nor even an actual terror attack, just a murderous illegal immigrant who knifed a copper.

        So, Occam’s razor and all that. By all means ask questions about the official narrative. However, if someone can provide answers that plug the gaps and flaws, they are likely to be pretty mundane and involve things like bungling, incompetence and opportunism.

        • luikkerland
          September 10, 2011 at 1:41 pm

          The only obstacle, then, that seems to prevent 9.11 being a false flag is its scale and thus it’s complexity. But false flag is a military strategy that is apparently even codified in the US Army Field Manual (please look it up, the wikileaks page seems to be under construction); increasing the scale of a proven model should not be difficult. The use of drills, and compartmentalisation means that most players don’t understand their role, increasing scale only requires a larger group of unwitting accomplices. The model only requires a small core of ringleaders in command – an “A-Team” – and a small band of operatives – an “X-Team” to clear the way for a patsy – someone who most likely believes he is taking part in a drill – to eventually be set up. This is the general model. Incompetence is a tool in the model whereby observers can rationalise the events.

          I think that it would be too complicated for Islamic fundamentalist (who spent the days prior to the attacks living it up in Las Vegas) – who could not fly training aircraft very well – to fly passenger jets into objects that would be upon them before they could make minor alterations in course, or, in the case of Flight 77, crash into the ground due to some aerodynamic difficulty arising from flying at speed at a certain very low altitude.

          Indeed, a false flag attack might not have been needed to go to war, but it would certainly increase the likelihood. Please remember that opposition to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq was considerable in the US and the UK EVEN after 9.11. Does the size of opposition after apparent provacation mean that US and UK populations would have been determinedly set against war otherwise? I cannot say.

          The banishment of liberty is predicated solely on the existence of the Al-Qaeda bogeyman. If Al-Qaeda and Islamist Terrorism was not made to appear to be such a threat, we would not see the abuses against freedom that we do. Islamist Terrorism is such an apparent terrible threat because of 9.11. I begin to suspect that if government waiting for an opportunity to take away liberties relied on “murderous illegal immigrants” to get their act together, they would be waiting for a long time – and time is money, afterall.

          • September 10, 2011 at 3:20 pm

            The only obstacle, then, that seems to prevent 9.11 being a false flag is its scale and thus it’s complexity.

            No. It is one significant obstacle. Again, Occam’s Razor.

      • David
        September 10, 2011 at 12:22 pm


      • September 10, 2011 at 1:25 pm

        Again I bring up the problem of the timing. The results are highly dependent on the incumbent president jumping the way you’d hope, so why on Earth would you choose to act less than 8 months into the term of a new president? It’s vastly more likely the crimes against liberty you mention and the military-industrial complex beating it up for juicy contracts are the result not of planning but simple naked opportunism. As I said in response to James’ post, vultures are never in on the kill – they always turn up afterwards.

  3. September 10, 2011 at 1:45 pm

    @ luikkerland,

    well done for stating your position. It would be easy to just shut up about it, given the level of scorn heaped upon those who question the official narrative.

    • luikkerland
      September 10, 2011 at 1:52 pm

      Thanks for that. But again, thanks to others for taking time to engage reasonably from the “other side”.

    • September 10, 2011 at 3:19 pm

      There’s nothing wrong with questioning the narrative. It’s the absurd leaps to conclusions that attracts the scorn.

  4. Chris Snowdon
    September 10, 2011 at 2:29 pm

    The OP seems rightly sceptical of the drone/CGI video doctoring theory which only leaves the argument from incredulity about the Pentagon attack. I have never understood why conspiracy theorists find it so so amazing that a plane could be flown into the Pentagon. The Pentagon is f***ing massive. It’s no more an amazing feat of flying that touching down on a runway. It wasn’t going at full speed, but even if it was it would be no more impressive than the Japanese pilots who managed to fly their planes into US boats during WWII. If the hijackers were aiming for that precise spot then, sure, it was a skillful piece of flying, but they weren’t. They were aiming to hit any part of the Pentagon and they did.

    • luikkerland
      September 10, 2011 at 2:50 pm

      As I wrote, the feat of skill, according to people who fly these things, involved in flying the modern passenger jet (not a considerably slower, prop-powered single seater WWII fighter) into the Pentagon was the one that prevented it from crashing into the ground according to the approach vector and speed which the few CCTV pictures permitted to us for scrutiny attests to. You assume that the plane was flown at speeds akin to those needed at landing. Everyone else seems to think that it was flown at high speed – 400mph I think is the figure.

      From here

      I shan’t get into the aerodynamic impossibility of flying a large commercial jetliner 20 feet above the ground at over 400 MPH. A discussion on ground effect energy, tip vortex compression, downwash sheet reaction, wake turbulence, and jetblast effects are beyond the scope of this article (the 100,000-lb jetblast alone would have blown whole semi-trucks off the roads.)

      Let it suffice to say that it is physically impossible to fly a 200,000-lb airliner 20 feet above the ground at 400 MPH.

      The author, a pilot and aeronautical engineer, challenges any pilot in the world to do so in any large high-speed aircraft that has a relatively low wing-loading (such as a commercial jet). I.e., to fly the craft at 400 MPH, 20 feet above ground in a flat trajectory over a distance of one mile.

      • Chris Snowdon
        September 10, 2011 at 3:59 pm

        Unlike guy you’re quoting, Giulio Bernacchia is a real pilot of commercial airlines and he says quite the opposite.

        “I can testify that it is absolutely possible to fly for miles on end at 50 feet at
        250 KTS (287 MPH) with a low-wing-loading large plane , but I admit it, I
        never tried at 400 plus MPH.

        In my opinion the official version of the fact is absolutely plausible, does not
        require exceptional circumstances, bending of any law of physics or
        superhuman capabilities. Like other (real pilots) have said, the manoeuvres
        required ofthe hijackers were within their (very limited) capabilities, they
        were performed without any degree of finesseand resulted in damage to the
        targets only after desperate overmanoeuvring of the planes.The hijackers
        took advantage of anything that might make their job easier, and decided not
        to rely on their low piloting skills. It is misleading to make people believe
        that the hijackers HAD to possess superior pilot skills to do what they did.”

        The whole article is worth reading:

      • September 10, 2011 at 4:05 pm

        I’d say the evidence for it being as high as 400mph is weak. If it’s that hard to do it’s more likely that it was a lot slower. Hell, being hit in the face by 100 tonnes of 757, including a few tens of thousands of litres of flammable jet fuel, at anything above its stall speed is going to hurt. And as I recall it’s reported to have descended into the Pentagon, which would mean the whole 400mph level flight at 20 foot thing is a straw man.

        Of course we could suppose it was a missile or something else that was not a Boeing 757, but just put yourself in the position of blowing a hole in the Pentagon and blaming it on a crashed airliner. Once again we immediately run into huge problems with the number of people in on the conspiracy. American Airlines would have to be involved in order to confirm that yes, their inventory of Boeing 757s is down by one, and obviously the ATC people at Dulles airport who reported it descending toward Washington. But you’d also need to include as co-conspirators the million or so people who live and work around DC. This is necessary not just so you have people in Arlington confirming the low flying airliner over their roofs losing height and heading toward Washington, but because anyone could have been passing by the west side of the Pentagon when the not-a-plane struck and end up in front of a TV camera going live and saying something really inconvenient for the conspirators. Something like, “Weird, I was looking right at the wall of the Pentagon and it just blew the fuck right up. No, I didn’t see a plane, was there supposed to be one?”

        So yes, it could have been something other than a 757 if you’ve covered all the bases including the not inconsiderable one of getting the entire resident population on board with the story in advance. You can’t possibly control all those people and make sure they’re all looking the wrong way so to eliminate the risk you need them on side. All of them, and permanently to the point of being sure they don’t shag someone who’s not involved and say the wrong thing in their sleep. And even if that was possible the risk doesn’t actually go away because that anybody who may be passing at just the wrong moment and end up telling a TV camera that he saw a plane-less explosion could live interstate and just be passing through.

        Again, for all its perceived problems the official story is simply far less unlikely than anything anyone else is proposing. I don’t think that because I trust the people feeding it out but because whenever I play Devil’s advocate and assume one the alternatives is correct I find there are implications, mainly relating to maintaining secrecy, that are just too remote to be credible.

  5. Bill
    September 10, 2011 at 2:30 pm

    WTC7 was demolished an opinion based entirely on the video evidence.
    It wasn’t hit by anything and yet it caught fire nobody as ever answered how this building and not those around it caught fire nor have they ever explained how that fires intensity didn’t increase.
    Its steel frame wouldn’t be affected by fire so would remain standing after the fire was extinguished or burnt out.
    The 2.5 second collapse into its own footprint is clear evidence of demolition.

    I have no answers as to who did it or why they did it but the fact remains it was demolished.

    • September 10, 2011 at 3:49 pm

      I have no answers as to who did it or why they did it but the fact remains it was demolished.

      No, that’s an opinion.

      • Bill
        September 10, 2011 at 4:25 pm

        Apologies for stating something unproven as fact.

        In your opinion the jihadists were real and without touching WTC7 with anything let alone a jet they managed raise it to the ground within its own footprint sometime after they killed themselves in their pinpoint crashes into both towers!

        Oh well it’s been an interesting day.

        • September 10, 2011 at 5:34 pm

          … and without touching WTC7 with anything…

          Collateral damage isn’t something that only the west is capable of, and I don’t find it that difficult to believe that a 400-plus meter skyscraper falling down onto a lower rise building just across the road could have inflicted damage to WTC7. Yes, sure, it seems surprising that that damage caused a fire that would eventually collapse it but what does the alternative imply? That it was deliberately brought down because…. er, why? What motive is there for bringing it down that is both worth the risk and can’t be done an easier way? Those who say it was jihadists can offer a convincing motive for the jihadists doing what they’re supposed to have done, and far from there not being an easier option for them it was probably at or near the upper limits of what they could do – doubtless they would have wanted to do far more damage if they could have but crashing planes was as much hurt as they could inflict. If you want me to accept something else I need to hear a similarly plausible motive which rules out other ways of achieving the same objective.

          • Chris Snowdon
            September 10, 2011 at 5:50 pm

            Quite so. What was the point? Wasn’t it enough to bring down the WTC and crash into the Pentagon? Wasn’t this a big enough pretext for war without bringing down this relatively insignificant building?

            And if, as I think the conspiracists believe, WTC7 was some sort of command centre which contained evidence that the conspirators needed to destroy, surely torching the building was sufficient?

    • September 10, 2011 at 5:55 pm

      … nobody as ever answered how this building and not those around it caught fire nor have they ever explained how that fires intensity didn’t increase.

      Do you mean nobody’s given an answer you find acceptable? As I recall the answer was that it was hit by burning debris from the north tower. Being an office building full of paper and other combustibles it’d have been amazing if it had not caught fire. Since it was both nearer to the north tower and larger than neighbouring buildings is it that far fetched that it copped the worst of it? The fire wasn’t really fought and the buildings own systems were left to fend for themselves, not doing all that well either. And I don’t think anyone propounding the official line is claiming the fire’s intensity didn’t increase much less attempting to explain it – surely they claim it increased in intensity to the point of weakening the steel that was holding the place up.

      You may not accept the answer, but that’s not the same as no answer having been made. Agreed, WTC7 is one of the stranger aspects of what happened that day but as I’ve said already (and explained why) to my mind the official explanation is the least unlikely.

      Its steel frame wouldn’t be affected by fire…

      Steel isn’t affect by fire? Then how do you forge it? 😉

      • Bill
        September 10, 2011 at 9:26 pm

        Really you state that ‘debris’ hit just this building and started a fire?
        Where were all the fires in the other complex buildings?

        You then state ‘paper caugt fire’.
        You then state that steel is affected by fire.
        Steel is forged and shaped at a far hgher temperature than a paper fuelled fire burns at.
        Steel also weakens gradually under the constant application of intense heat and cools remarkably quickly when that heat is withdrawn.
        The strutrural integrity of steel in a fire is what makes it the ideal material to build tall with.
        Does anyone not think for an instant that if it were proved that a paper fueled fire could so distort a buildings steel supporting struture so catastrophically all buildings put up since 2001 would be built a different way?

        WTC7 is the elephant in the room. Look at any steel framed building hit by an explosive device of any sort and the majority of it is still standing. Google is chock full of such images from before 2001 and after.
        To this day WTC7 is the only steel framed building that has fallen within it’s own footprint without the proven use of demolition exposives.

        • September 11, 2011 at 1:19 am

          I stated nothing and worded my comment very carefully to avoid doing so. I’ll repeat it: you said nobody had ever given an explanation, and I gave the explanation that has been given, noting that your refusal to accept it is not the same thing as no explanation having been given. Arguing its merits is fine, saying nobody’s ever bothered explaining it when they have… And incidentally, I’d hoped I’d made it clear that it was not my explanation – I even said that WTC7 is one of the stranger aspects.

          However, as I’ve repeated umpteen times here, regardless of what we’d hitherto expected the effect of fire in a steel framed building (and ignoring the obvious question marks over treating all such buildings as being of a class – can’t one steel framed building have design flaws not shared by others, as some say WTC7 did?) if we are to accept that WTC7 was demolished we’re just exchanging one set of questions for another, even bigger set. Which is fine by me, so let’s imagine you were going to do what you say was done and tackle these new questions:

          * If WTC7 was brought down by explosives what was the objective?
          * Was the demolition of WTC7 incidental to the destruction of the rest of the complex, i.e. was it the only one demolished explosively?
          * If yes, was the demolition in advance, knowing that the planes were to be crashed? And if so why weren’t WTC1 and 2 brought down the same way?
          * On the other hand if the demolition of WTC7 was not planned but opportunistic how was it achieved so quickly with the site crawling with emergency services?
          * If the destruction of WTC1, 2 and 7 were all achieved by demolition by explosives what was supposed to be achieved with the destruction of WTC7 that was not already achieved with the destruction of WTC 1 and 2?
          * What is the minimum number of people you’d require to set the explosives to demolish WTC7 and optionally 1 and 2?
          * Were Flight 93 and/or Flight 77 part of the plan or just a/a pair of hijacks that by the most incredible coincidence happened to go off at about the same time as your plan to destroy some or all of the WTC?
          * If part of the plan how many people are involved and in what roles?
          * What was supposed to be achieved by damaging the Pentagon that was not already achieved with the destruction of WTC 1 and 2, and optionally 7?
          * If the Pentagon damage was also achieved by explosives did you still really crash a plane into it? If not how did you ensure none of the million or so people living in the area saw a plane-less explosion and bollixed the narrative? Did your budget allow for buying that much silence or did you just hope everyone would be looking the other way?
          * If you couldn’t or wouldn’t use a plane for some reason (why?) then why couldn’t that part of the ‘attack’ been a simple bomb?
          * What objective was not achieved due to the premature crash of Flight 93?
          * Assuming you’re confident of the continuing silence of everybody who supplied or planted explosives, any airlines (including their staff) who you need to lie about losing aircraft, ATC operators who’ve lied as well, plus anyone who may have seen something that contradicts the Pentagon part of the story – basically the entire population of Washington DC and Arlington VA plus anyone passing through – how many other people are involved in your conspiracy and in what roles?
          * Since one who talks could probably buy life and freedom with the lives of all the rest all conspirators are effectively dealing with the Prisoner’s Dilemma. How will you ensure all these people remain silent indefinitely? How much and when? All up front risks them doing a runner, and nothing up front risks them blowing the whistle, and anything in between is just a compromise.
          * How will you ensure that nobody is stupid enough to give the game away by buying a Ferrari? Since money that can’t be spent is no different from money you don’t have how will you persuade your people to still keep silent despite an inability to spend freely all this money you’ve bought their silence with?
          * Remind us again why you’re doing all this. As risk/reward ratios go how would you categorise it?
          * If to provoke a president into war why only 8 months into the presidency? Are you already that sure he’ll react as you hope? Wouldn’t studying the guy in office for a couple of years be better?
          * If you are the president or someone close to him how did you get all this organised in 8 months?
          * Are you really, really, really sure there wasn’t an easier way to do what you wanted to do than go through all this?

          WTC7 may, as you claim, be the elephant in the room, and I’ll repeat that I accept it’s a bit weird. But the thing is an elephant still needs to function as an elephant and I’m not sure this is doing so. It’s functioning more like a Matryoshka doll, except that unlike the dolls as you go deeper into the WTC7 demolition idea the new questions get bigger and bigger instead of smaller and smaller.

          It’s not enough to say that it can’t have collapsed when it clearly did so. We couldn’t explain how bumblebees fly, but that they can fly was never in doubt and nobody suggested there was anything in it apart from the bees. I’d happily buy your claim that WTC7 was demolished if it weren’t for the fact that what that necessarily implies – a conspiracy involving probably hundreds of people at the minimum and at the upper end over a million, none of whom ever talked – is far more incredible than that a building, a possibly flawed building, reacted in an unexpected way from an event that its designers and builders never anticipated. Provide convincing answers to those necessary questions – and by convincing I mean as good as the pretty plausible answers to the same or equivalent questions when applied to the hijack theory – and you could change my mind.

  6. Damo
    September 10, 2011 at 2:50 pm

    If they could pull off 9-11, why not pull off WMD in Iraq?

    • September 10, 2011 at 3:26 pm

      Good question. It’s not like the septics don’t have a stock of chemical weapons kicking around that they’ve taken out of their own arsenal, and having knocked down the regime it should have been easy enough to plant something to be found by your own army, or better yet allied forces, later on.

      • September 10, 2011 at 3:50 pm

        Maybe they just didn’t care either way. The WMD was a paper-thin excuse anyway.

        • Bill
          September 10, 2011 at 4:18 pm

          The choice of target is intriguing.
          The WTC complex is vast and although the twin tower stood much higher than everything elese they presented a very ‘thin’ target which these two planes are alleged to have hit smack on.
          Surely it would have required less flying skill to simply aim for the mass of buildings rather than a single tower.
          The fact they hit each tower with one plane is also quite remarkable.

          The pentagon is another huge building and yet the plane or whatever hit it managed to ‘just hit it’causing a minimum amount of death and destruction.

          Assuming these planes were real and were piloted by people who had never flown jet aircraft before and accepting they were capable of executing this attack to perfection why ddn’t they go after the White House or fly all three planes into the Pentagon thus crippling their sworn enemy?

          It wasn’my intention to look any deeper into this but after following the three blogs on here and reading the tap (consipracy throries gone wild) and having my demolition knowledge put down with a sentence on lr’s blog I’ve delved a bit deeper all be it from the luxury of my computer screen.

          I find it simply unbelievable that the might of the United states military cannot take out Gadaffis palace in one go, cannot take down Sadams many residences one after the other and yet a group of people with zero flying skill can accurately fly three jetliners into three different buldings and manage to bring down a third which wasn’t hit by anything.

          Still no idea who did it or why but whatever the real truth turns out to be it will be an interesting read.
          Off to the ether again.

          • Chris Snowdon
            September 10, 2011 at 4:34 pm

            The Twin Towers were enormous stationary targets. Not that difficult to miss although both planes nearly did. It is likely that Flight 93 was destined for the White House or perhaps the Capitol. That would have meant that the centres of politics, commerce and the military were all hit – a more comprehensive message than aiming everything at the Pentagon. As a terrorist attack it makes perfect sense to spread the carnage.

            What is this demolition experience of which you speak?

            • Bill
              September 10, 2011 at 9:29 pm

              Controlled Demolition

              • Chris Snowdon
                September 10, 2011 at 9:42 pm

                You own a demolition company? You’re a retired demolition worker? You come from a long line of demolishers? What exactly?

          • September 10, 2011 at 5:10 pm

            That they having done so doesn’t mean that they can’t. What’s holding them back is probably not the ability to do it but the political consequences. Why not take out Saddam’s palaces? Because they wanted him and they didn’t know which one he’d be in. Why not take out Gaddafi’s palace? Again, because you’d want to know he was in it before you start lobbing millions of dollars of Tomahawks at it. But also because on Obama’s plate is an out of control deficit and already eye-watering debt, an unprecedented downgrade of the nation’s creditworthiness, 10% unemployment, and maybe the dawning realisation that his problems aren’t going to be dealt with by beating them to death with bags of freshly printed money. Oh, and the military actions of his predecessor that Obama still hasn’t worked out how to get out of. He needs to open another front in The War on Vague Disquiet like a kick in the head, especially when Europe’s happy to do it for him.

            The fact they hit each tower with one plane is also quite remarkable.

            Is it? They all had flying experience, albeit not on a large twin jet, and presumably Alky-Aida improved the odds further and selected the ones with the best aptitude for the actual flying. Then I guess it’s a matter of lining up from sufficiently far away to minimise the need for corrections, and of course knowing how to work the autopilot would help in that lining up. And the targets weren’t all that small – between about 60m and 80m across depending on whether you looked straight at a face or at a corner – and both planes were 767s – nearly 50m wide – and didn’t need to hit dead centre. Photos of the north tower show that the impact was off to one side (left half of the north side) and as I recall when the second plane hit the south tower it was at an angle to the face and appeared to be manoeuvring. A precision attack would have been difficult but this doesn’t seem all that precise, just good enough for their purposes. And if one plane had missed, what the hell – lots more things to crash into as a conciliation prize.

            Again, I’d bring up the point that if it was not hijackers it raises even more awkward questions. There’s a lot of talk from conspiracy theorists* about how hard it was for the hijackers to have done what they’re supposed to have done, but none at all about the difficulties involved in pulling off what they suggest was done instead.

            * Conspiracy theorist should not be seen as a disparaging term. I’m also a conspiracy theorist. I just propound the one that it was a conspiracy of religious nutjobs in caves. 😉

            • Bill
              September 10, 2011 at 9:44 pm

              Nutjobs in caves is where I lose all belief in the narrative.
              Like anything else which we are not pary to or part of we can only form conclusions based on whatever evidence is availale from whatever source so whatever conculsion we come to it is only temporary because we don’t have all the facts to hand.
              As is the case with all sorts of terrorism we have to rely on the MSM not a body of people known for just presenting the facts of the matter in an unbiased form.

              In my own mind based on personal experience and the video evidence on the web from official sources and unofficial and the whack jobs WTC7 was demolished by a controlled demolition process that worked flawlessly taking out all supporting columns simultaneously so that each floor collapsed just as the floor beneath it blew which brough it down in its own footprint which is only ever done to minimise collatoral damage to surrounding buildings.

              Others will quite rightly disagree and rely on a cave full of islamists planning an attack thousands of miles away under the noses of the biggest big brother on earth.

              I agree in many respects the official explanations are plausible but in some respects espcially the NIST theatre surrounding WTC7 are not.
              Apologies for the editing and many missed typos but my Dell died today (overheating graphic chip so no conspiracy there!) an I am attempting to type on the tiny keyboard of an EEEpc.

              • September 11, 2011 at 1:35 am

                Bill, per my other reply, I can accept the controlled demolition theory, no problem, providing the questions which arise from it get plausible answers. I’ve been asking for years and I’m still asking. The madman in a cave ordering his deluded but faithful followers to find similarly deluded but faithful followers to go to flight school theory has plausible answers, and looked at from the p.o.v. of those conspirators it’s internally consistent. Assuming your theory is really the correct one the answers should make at least as much sense and looked at from the p.o.v. of those different conspirators it should also be internally consistent. I’m especially keen on hearing how the silence of everybody involved, which depending on other answers may be a hell of a large number, could reasonably be expected to be guaranteed for at least the ten years we’ve seen so far, never mind the perpetual silence a sane conspiracy would be aiming for. This would be an absolutely essential part of all alternative theories yet I’ve never seen it addressed, whereas the mad muzzies wouldn’t give a rip about the whole world knowing once they were airborne and in control of the planes.

                My sympathies on the loss of your Dell, and if it was like the bastard I had my greater sympathies on putting up with the damn thing ’til now.

  7. Antony
    September 10, 2011 at 4:02 pm

    The Pentagon and WTC7 have always been the reasons as to why I question the official story.

    I don’t doubt that aircraft hit the towers and so discount the “drone” theory. You can see the impact damage of the aircraft right across the face of the tower for the total of the wingspan. There is no such damage at the Pentagon.

    The second, of course, is the lack of video evidence. There is the 2 frame CCTV recording showing “something” hitting, however the fact that no other video has been released siting national security as the excuse is, to me, extremely suspect.

    • September 10, 2011 at 5:15 pm

      There is no such damage at the Pentagon.

      Big difference between a plane hitting a wall of glass and light steel and a wall of stone. And ask yourself this: if you were going to blow up part of the Pentagon and blame it on a plane what would derail your plane and how many people would need to be in on it to avoid that happening? When I asked those questions the answers I got were firstly, anyone saying they saw the whole thing and there wasn’t a plane, and secondly, in the region of a million people.

  8. September 10, 2011 at 7:25 pm

    A little bit of critical thinking might be in order here. What sort of warhead would a putative ‘Drone’ need in order to demolish a Steel and concrete stressed skin tower construction of 60’s vintage?

    A look at the level of available contemporary technology might be in order. Was the technology to create such explosive effect and create the fire seen so clearly on the footage of the collapse available, even in prototype form? If so, evidence please.

    Was there one or two explosions at one of the impacts, and have you ever seen ‘simultaneous’ detonations to correlate the two?

    Those are only three questions out of thousands more that could be asked of the ‘Conspiracy theorists’. Simple questions that would need to be simply answered to prove their point.

    As Longrider points out; a simple use of Occam’s razor readily discounts the ‘drone’ postulation.

    • Bill
      September 10, 2011 at 9:57 pm

      The drone theory is often misunderstoodto my mind. What started out was the simple and believable hypothesis that the drone was simply a remote comtrolled aircraft seems to have been spun into a remote controlled missile or plane filled with exposives or cgi aircraft painted over a missile.
      It must be possible to control a jet aircraft by remote control as the US Air force were contemplating using them over Cuba in the early sixties.
      Drone operator or pilot hitting both towers smack on and not a glancing blow shows they were highly skilled or very lucky.

  9. cuffleyburgers
    September 12, 2011 at 1:54 pm

    At the risk of sounding like a tinfoil hat wearing, svivel-eyed loon, has anybody thought that perhaps nobody expected the towers to collapse, and that hitting them fairly high up would limit the number of casualties, especially early-ish in the morning? And suppose the organisers weren’t the CIA but say a cabal of individuals in the military industrial complex, the same bunch who via Cheney effectively piloted the zombie Bush all through his disastrous presidency in which trillions of dollars were mis-spent with the likes of Cheney’s former companies?

    Whatever the causes of 9/11 it is undeniable that the way the subsequent war was prosecuted, a small circle of very rich powerful men benefitted enormously, and that circle had very clear links with the Bush regime.

    • September 12, 2011 at 5:00 pm

      The timing is still odd: 8 months into a presidency, 10 if you count from the election. Was that enough time to conceive, plan and execute it? Was that long enough to gauge the new president in office and be sure he’ll jump the way you want? This doesn’t seem likely so you’d expect any kind of false flag casus belli job to take place in the latter half or even final year of the term. Unless of course you’d rigged the election beforehand and new who the president was going to be ahead of time, which implies an even wider conspiracy (which almost failed since it was such a close result). And the more that are in on it the harder it is to assure secrecy even short term, never mind the decade that’s passed since.

      Whatever the causes of 9/11 it is undeniable that the way the subsequent war was prosecuted, a small circle of very rich powerful men benefitted enormously, and that circle had very clear links with the Bush regime.

      I think opportunism rather than the high risk for reward situation an inside conspiracy would imply. This isn’t Enron stuff here – would you risk the needle for a fat government contract for your company? Because if it leaked that’s what you’d face, and I doubt many execs love the company or the money quite that much. But thinking about how to turn a tragedy to their own advantage… well, it’s just like Jo Moore saying that it was a good day to bury bad news, and while most people probably thought she was an insensitive bitch I doubt anyone thought there was any more to it that that.

Comments are closed.