No mystery
| 09:10 UK time, Tuesday, 16 September 2008
"There's no mystery" about the collapse of a third huge skyscraper at the World Trade Center on 9/11, the lead investigator of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, told me last week.
Speaking at the NIST headquarters just outside Washington DC, Dr Shyam Sunder said it was definitely not a controlled demolition, as many self-styled "9/11 Truthers" maintain.
After three years extensive and exhaustive investigation NIST has published their final report on the World Trade Center and concluded that fire caused Tower 7 to collapse (pdf link). And they deduced from a series of highly complex computer models that the collapse started with the failure of just one column, column 79 on the 13th floor.
Dr Sunder added that the collapse of WTC7 represents the first known instance of the total collapse of a tall building primarily due to fires.
Why was it the first in the world? NIST scientists say it was because fires were allowed to burn in Tower 7 for nearly seven hours and the mains water had been severed by the collapse of WTC1, meaning that fire fighters were unable to fight the fires. The failure of the mains water supply also cut the sprinkler system to the lower half of the building, where the fires burnt for longer and more fiercely.
NIST specifically looked at whether controlled demolition using conventional explosives could have caused the collapse. But they found that the minimum charge necessary to destroy just one key column would have produced a huge amount of noise - between 130-140 Db even one kilometre away from WTC7 - the equivalent of standing next to a jet plane engine.
Yet NIST found no witnesses who had heard anything like that, nor any such noise on any of the videos of the collapse and none of the shattered windows that would have been expected on the backs of buildings.
Dr Sunder told me that they judged other possible hypotheses, such as the theory that there was a controlled demolition using an incendiary called thermite or thermate, were "not credible enough to justify investigation".
Yesterday was the closing day for comments on that final official report.
We have been filming a new set of interviews for an update of "The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 - The Third Tower" to be broadcast on BBC Two soon. With the publication of the final official report on 9/11, officials think the long process of investigation is at last nearly over.
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~16~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Mike
I am afraid you are 'not credible enough to justify' taking seriously anymore.
Complain about this comment
Oh dear, put on your tin-foil hats and get out your green pens.
This topic always seems to bring out the 'interesting' comentators ;-)
Complain about this comment
The problem is that people who think it is a conspiracy will continue to think that it is a conspiracy because this evidence/report is "what THEY want you to believe".
But FWIW, I enjoyed the third tower documentary last time it was on...
Complain about this comment
If 9/11 was a conspiracy why the hell would they collapse a tower that HADN'T been hit by a plane? What would that possibly add to the credibility of the plot?
To be honest I don't why the BBC even has this sort of blog.. it just encourages the 'george bush is a zionist shape shifting lizard' crowd even more. No amount of proof will change their minds even though the huge range of differerent conspiracies they imagine are contradictory.
Complain about this comment
I'll take a scientific study and computer modellings over the
crack-pot "Government did it for some reason" theories. It does seem
that America has more than it's fair share of conspiracy theorists,
perhaps with reason given some of the underhanded things it's
government has done to it's people. However the fact remains that to
perpetrate 9/11 and all the associated secondary collapses would have
taken a monumental amount of organisation between so many people as to
be effectively impossible to keep quiet. There may be secrets still in
the case of 9/11 over who knew what when variety but it's a whole
different scale.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I know you guys are full on coincidence theorists and all that, super heated jet fuel fires causing global collapse and such.
So, I guess you don't really follow the alternative media and the issues they cover etc, etc.
The 'truth movement', tin-foil-crowd
Whatever you wish to call them don't only report on 9/11 you know. They have been reporting on the present banking collapse for the last few years, everything they have reported was being planned to happen, has happened exactly that way they said it would.
Your media has been very lax at telling you whats going on, drip feeding you causes and extent of what is happening and what is to come.
Where the alt. media has been doing good old fashioned investigative reporting, honest analysis and have called it spot on.
As for Building 7, the argument can go on and on eternally. It is just one part of the whole 9/11 question of what happened.
Your Media and Govt coporate bodies tell you that it was a guy in a cave.
The alt media say it was head honcho's of the media/industrial/military/governemntal complex that we live in.
Now if they were right about the banking collaspes maybe they are worth listening to a little bit more than you give them credit for.
Or you can stick with the guy in a cave theory
Complain about this comment
"The alt media say it was head honcho's of the media/industrial/military/governemntal complex that we live in."
What? All of them? Is that the best explanation you can come up with?
Complain about this comment
Mike
The NIST report is a joke.
It differed completely from the story they had previously told Popular Mechanics.
British fire resistance tests show steel framing to be far more enduring than NIST's collapse theories maintain.
NIST assumes much while explaining little--not even how one failing column can pull down the neighboring ones.
They completely ignore the molten metal found in the basement of all three towers.
http://www.ae911truth.org/flashmov11.htm
Complain about this comment
@Peter_Sym
"If 9/11 was a conspiracy why the hell would they collapse a tower that HADN'T been hit by a plane? What would that possibly add to the credibility of the plot?"
Because it held documents for numerous ongoing Wall Street investigations including Enron and WorldCom.
@AlexBennee
"I'll take a scientific study and computer modellings over the crack-pot "Government did it for some reason" theories."
Here's one scientific study
http://www.ae911truth.org/flashmov11.htm
Here's some none crack-pot sources
http://www.ae911truth.org/
http://patriotsquestion911.com/
http://stj911.org/
Complain about this comment
As long as Bush is alive, conspiracy theorists will thrive.
What next? Ask Oliver Stone.
Complain about this comment
In Russia noone ever believed "19 arabs" did it, that is, on their own, without internal help. For a plane to fly to Pentagon air safety zone you need to know air pass codes changed once a day minimum, and many other incongruencies, how Al Quaeda was announced on US TV as the attacker - literally on the 34th minute ! after the first tower collapsed.
Plus the very book, the investigation report results when published - who bought and read that book knows it doesn't look like documentary but like a science fiction.
President Bush though was never "suspected" in all initial Russian voices, never once.
However overall Russia isn't interested in the cause, it's an American thing, they'd know better at home, internally, what has happened.
I mean, it's US ground, not our expertise area at all, so here it was simply, like, eye-brows lifted in bewilderment, but then nobody attempted to investigate or mull over the subject in the years that passed.
Innocent people dead, this is the fact, we remember about 9/11 here only on 9/11 day when memorial service is held in all Russian churches for the souls of "nevinno ubiennukh" - innocent - and murdered! the big churches holdit in 2 languages - Russian and English.
Awful disaster, one can only sympathise with people, nothing can be changed about it.
Complain about this comment
Peter, i was just giving a very simple understanding of who the alt. media believes to be responsible. Not all of them but some of them.
I am not trying to convince you of who did what. I was just pointing out that alt. media are being presently proved right about the financial collapse so maybe there is some credibility in what they say about 9/11.
The explanation I gave is just as valid as 'a man in a cave' i would have thought, but if you like the man in a cave thing, stick with it. If you like the 'who knew this was going to happen' approach to the banking collapse, keep believing it.
After all, you only have a moral responsibility to yourself.
Complain about this comment
It is virtually certain that NIST got the correct answer. In all likelihood the fire was fed by diesel fuel from a storage tank which continued to pump. Once ignited when the critical air fuel mixture in the fumes came in contact with a source of ignition, the fuel continued to burn. As the temperature of the steel increased, its ability to sustain the weight above it continued to be reduced as it softened and ultimately gave way. The design flaw was that the structure was vulnerable to a single point of failure which resulted in a catastrophic cascade failure of the entire structure. This is why mathematical modeling including failure mode analysis is critical to the survivability of any serious engineering effort. That is much more feasible today than it was in the 1960s when the WTC was designed and built.
Complain about this comment
#10. Wouldn't it have made more sense then to crash a plane into that one too or have it burn more visibly and just incinerate everything?
In any case as worldcom and enron still went bust and many of their people were done for fraud it doesn't seem to have done much good!
Complain about this comment
"They have been reporting on the present banking collapse for the last few years, everything they have reported was being planned to happen, has happened exactly that way they said it would."
They are not the only ones. My tutor at university would turn most discussions of international relations to the importance of the global economy and the impending turbulance within. Scholars and researchers have been writing about our current situation for years to the extent that Enron was seen by some to be validation of their observations and this was back in 2001.
So it's not like the fact that the alternative media reported (and by dint of the implications of grand sinister conspiracies, mis-reported) these developments and predictions in more detail adds to their credibility in any significant fashion. Both the mainstream and alt medias cater to their audiences. The mainstream percieves their audience as being uninterested in or unable to comprehend stories that are mainly couched in technical terms, as any long term forecast of global finance would have to be. Meanwhile, the alt media favours long term predictions that mix the same technical language with dire consequences and implications of conspiracy.
The key point with the alt media and conspiracies, especially in this case, is that they take complicated, chaotic or unpredictable situations and make them safer, less threatening to the observer by imposing order, simplicity and predictability upon them. So instead of 9/11 being an unpredictable (US intelligence failings not withstanding) and terrifying terror attack launched by a previously unheard of group from a country many Americans couldn't place on a map, it becomes part of a wider conspiracy, controlled by figures who are known to the public, with their motivation being little more complex than to do evil, or to enslave mankind. Likewise, the current economic situation represents the complexity of global markets and the increasing speed at which events can have knock on effects which can exacerbate other situations and snowball into serious problems in ways that even analysts struggle to accurately predict. This chaotic system of estimated value and speculative trade has massive, if somewhat nebulous significance for everyone, as we are now seeing. How much more comforting is it, then, to read that the current "credit crunch" is not the result of a flashpoint between climate change, oil shocks, the energy crisis and a longer term trend of economic turbulence, but in fact the deliberate work of a cabal of evil men bent on destroying freedom or whatever their motives are supposed to be?
Complain about this comment
"Because it held documents for numerous ongoing Wall Street investigations including Enron and WorldCom."
That's just so funny! So the tinfoil-hat-wearers expect the rest of us to believe that all these super-powerful "head honcho's of the media / industrial / military / governemntal complex that we live in" all working together couldn't work out how to use a shredder so they came up with 9/11 instead?
Presumably the idea came up over a drink and a game of cards with a few of the Vesuvian guys, I suppose.
Complain about this comment
Skipjack,
your saying your theory of 'man in a cave' is not a taking a
'complicated, chaotic or unpredictable situations and make them safer, less threatening to the observer by imposing order, simplicity and predictability upon them'
Obviosly you believe in coincidence theories and you are welcome to that. All the stuff the alt. media talk about must not exist, Ludlow never happened, Iran-contra was a one off, The gulf of tonkin incident is just a story, PDD51 is classified for our own good and the ruling cabal would have no motive for perpertrating 9/11 what so ever. Not oil, not money, not power no motive at all.
Maybe the banks aren't collapsing and that is just a conspiricy theory too.
Complain about this comment
@14: even if this scenario occurred (and there are plenty of reasons why this shouldn't be the case) this doesn't explain why building 7 fell at speeds close to that of gravity - the fires that did exist in wtc7 were not distributed evenly throughout the building and there were plenty of floors untouched by fire...the Madrid Windsor Tower skyscraper was fully engulfed in flames for over 17 hours and did not collapse!!
Google for Barry Jennings' account of being inside building 7.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
"Sergei Dudarev, of the UK Atomic Energy Agency, found that steel loses its strength above 500C because its molecules undergo a physical transition from one state to another due to magnetic fluctuations. "
More coverage on different aspects of 9/11, please. This is the biggest story since WW2, after all.
Complain about this comment
Yes sure, now a question: Who is in charge of those investigations: Scientist independent to the government ?
Ja ja ja
Complain about this comment
Mike,
in reality NIST has been studying WTC 7 for much longer than three years. In fact, they published their "Interim Report on WTC 7" in 2004. So, it's not at all the case that they already hadn't spent considerable time on it before they started to exclusively concentrate on it in 2005.
In 2006, the lead WTC 7 investigator told New York Magazine:
"But truthfully, I don't really know. We've had trouble getting a handle on Building No. 7."
Then they suddenly come up with an explanation that is based on a "new phenomenon", for the first time causing a total collapse, at near freefall speed, of a steel-framed highrise building!
Such pure speculation could, of course, have been avoided in the first place, had the cause and mechanism of the destruction been determined by carefully examining the building's steel debris, instead of destroying it.
One obvious problem in the NIST draft report is this. In their interim report from 2004, they point out that
"Around 4:45 p.m., a photograph showed fires on Floors 7, 8, 9, and 11 near the middle of the north face; Floor 12 was burned out by this time."
Now they blame a raging inferno at and after 5 p.m. on floor 12 for the failure that started the destruction at 5:21 p.m. - the same floor in which the fires had died out long before that, according to their earlier report!
See the detailed response of scientists, architects, engineers and scholar to NIST's draft report at
http://www.911blogger.com/node/17794#comment-197609
Moreover, NIST's computer-generated models of the collapse of WTC 7, such as the models presented at
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_videos/wtc_videos.html
do not at all correspond with the way in which the building can be seen descending on the several videos that captured the collapse.
In the videos, the perimeter walls, connected to and supported by the large number of perimeter columns, retain their rectangular shape until late in the collapse; the perimeter columns clearly do not almost immediately buckle inwards over the building as they do in NIST's models. In other words, NIST's collapse model does not describe the way in which WTC 7 actually collapsed on September 11th, as anyone can see.
Here are my own comments to NIST:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/17785
Complain about this comment
There are plenty of sites available on the www to bolster the conspiracy claims. All in all there are far too many coincidences for it to have just been an accident.
The likes of the CIA and Tax office were officed in WTC7 and the knock on effect of documentation loss in America was immense.
One of the best sites ive found for information is whatreallyhappened.com, worth a look to anyone mildly interested in what might have been....
Complain about this comment
18: the "man in a cave" theory is a disingenuous title and certainly not "my theory". If you want to play the trite "c*-theory" game, then you could say I believe in "complexity theories". That is, rather than misleadingly simplifying the causes of 9/11 down to simply a man in a cave, I, along with anyone else who has put in a modicum of serious thought and research, recognise 9/11 as the result of a long and wide process that takes in the widening rich-poor gap globally, more localised issues such as the presence and conduct of US military personnel in Saudi Arabia, the usage and subsequent abandonment of the Taliban by the US to repel the Soviets in Afghanistan, Western attitudes toward the Israel-Palestine conflict and regional issues such as the rise of repressive regimes in the Middle East and the spread of Islamic theocracies. The Power of Nightmares is an excellent documentary which does a fantastic job of displaying the interplay of various actors and situations in leading to 9/11, as well as raising valid and reasonable questions about the role of the media and politicians in shaping how 9/11 and other events are represented in the mainstream.
Another interesting implication of the "man in a cave" moniker is the shades of racism which is particularly apparent in some of rhetoric employed by American conspiracy theorists. How could these backward, goat herding ARABS possibly manage to slip under the radar of the world's only hyperpower and inflict such spectacular and terrible injury? No, no group of arabs could ever be capable of something so catastrophically effective, it has to have been the white man, turning on his own!
Complain about this comment
'It is virtually certain that NIST got the correct answer. In all likelihood the fire was fed by diesel fuel from a storage tank which continued to pump. Once ignited when the critical air fuel mixture in the fumes came in contact with a source of ignition, the fuel continued to burn.'
NIST has actually ruled out the diesel from a storage tank scenario.
WTC7 is not the final mystery of 9/11 by any stretch. There are so many points to this debate on wtc7 but I'll chime in with just one.
Why have NIST now said, contrary to FEMA, that no steel from wtc7 was retained? Why have they not done what FEMA asked of them which was to analyse the 'highly unusual event' of intergranular melting and sulfidation of steel. If it was the gypsum in wallboards that caused this phenomenon (based on no scientific documentation that I can find whatsoever) does this have implications for the use of gypsum in buildings?
Also when talking about a seven hour fire it is worth remembering that NIST admit that the combustibles in any given location would have burned out in twenty minutes.
Complain about this comment
Although you may wish to declare 9/11 over-
Do not be too intimidated to address the question of the three MOSSAD teams who were following the bombers in the USA
and did not give useful warning to the US authorities
and their "Urban Moving Systems " team who set up to photograph the falling towers
and danced and gave themselves "high-fives" when the buildings collapsed
and then told the police
"the Palestinians did it".
Do you need links or ar you just afraid to address the issue?
Complain about this comment
areokes51,
The best agrument you can come up with is about my punctuation. Well thats me blown out of the water, eh.
You can deny the alt. media has been reporting on this and mainstream haven't, thats your choice. Just as you can convince yourself 9/11 was done by a man in a cave, again your choice.
But surely you can dismiss an argument because it is badly punctuated.
P.s. the syntax in your fourth sentance is a disgrace and 80's should be written 80s
Complain about this comment
"No mystery" according to the governments investigators...hardly an independent investigative source, Mike. Especially considering that NIST didn't bother to even investigate the most obvious hypothetis, explosives.
What were they afraid they'd find? Why not take the time to prove the conspiracy quacks wrong?
Barry Jennings is just one witness who can testify that there were explosives going off in WTC7, so it sounds like NIST didn't look very closely for evidence.
There is video evidence of what looks like explosives rippling up the upper corner of the building, and further video evidence of multiple flashes going off in the smoking hole at the back of WTC7, video which was shown at a talk at Cooper Union. Maybe you can work these videos into your next show Mike?
Can we get all the evidence into the discussion, and not just what fits in with the BBC's mission, regarding 9-11?
Are there any engineers or architects reading this who are convinced by the latest NIST report?
And Mike, why did the BBC refuse to show any video's of the collapse of building 7 for over 5 years? Why the coverup?
Also, why did you hold of on reporting the release of this latest NIST paper, until just after the closing day for final comments on the paper?? This was news weeks ago.
I agree with Hanks comment #1, you seem to be a little biased, Mike.
Complain about this comment
I like the comment about the 'security' people find in imposing order upon things they can neither quantify nor control, which leads to a strangely comforting homegrown conspiracy rather than an unanticipated attack from abroad being accepted as the obvious cause for catastrophe.
However, it's surely an oversimplification. It is, ironically, no secret that governments keep secrets from their populations - but you can't really blame them for that, I'm not convinced I'd sleep well if i was privy to every single piece of intelligence gathered by every government in the world!
There will almost certainly be more to all of this than we're being told. But that doesn't equate to the mass murder of hundreds of people by the government elected to protect them for no better reason than money, oil and power.
Sure the twin towers attacks gave George Bush carte blanche to launch his wars against Afgghanistan and subsequently Iraq, but I feel quite sure that if a President of the United States desired to start a war in a middle eastern country (for whatever reasons) he would find a far less self destructive excuse.
It's also worth remembering that the people supposedly committing these attacks for money, power and oil are the very people already in power, who already control the worlds finances and who introduce legislation on oil.
In essence I think it's very easy to dismiss conspiracy theorists as crackpots, and it's also very easy to distrust the people who run our nations, but it's almost certainly neither one nor the other that's correct.
As for Alternative Media... Here we all are discussing this topic on the BBC's website. The BBC being, as we all know, an independant corporation run in accordance with government guidelines and from public funding via compulsory payment by UK residents of a licence fee. I may be naive but I trust the BBC, you can throw accusations of bias at it, naturally, but surely the so called 'alternative media' works to an agenda in a way the BBC does not. The BBC will report facts as they are presented to it, or as its journalists learn them to be, whereas alternative media must by definition distrust the mass media and look for a different spin on stories, distorting simply unexplainable events (which mass media will portray as exactly that) into proof of something which will serve to endear it to its target audience...
I think it's extremely likely I've managed to meander hugely away from any point I may ever have been in danger of making here, but in a nutshell if you find yourself on an all consuming quest to find out the truth about what's ging on in the world I'd strongly recommend you downgrade it to a more passive curiosity, because even if there is some overarching government conspiracy, they're definitely never going to let you prove it!
PS, I know I've gone on for ages, but did anyone read the article in the magazine website a few weeks ago about flat-earthers?
My word that made me chuckle!
Complain about this comment
For a plane to fly to Pentagon air safety zone you need to know air pass codes changed once a day minimum
----------
Actually no, you need code for permission to fly there, but there is no magic wall to stop you doing so.
Complain about this comment
Lets all be honest, whatever "opinions" are expressed, however much they be laden with objective information, the American Govt will always tell the people what they want the people to know.....
Complain about this comment
"Especially considering that NIST didn't bother to even investigate the most obvious hypothetis, explosives."
Yes they did. This is from the text in the article above:
"NIST specifically looked at whether controlled demolition using conventional explosives could have caused the collapse. But they found that the minimum charge necessary to destroy just one key column would have produced a huge amount of noise - between 130-140 Db even one kilometre away from WTC7 - the equivalent of standing next to a jet plane engine.
Yet NIST found no witnesses who had heard anything like that, nor any such noise on any of the videos of the collapse and none of the shattered windows that would have been expected on the backs of buildings."
With regards to Barry Jennings, he cannot, as you claim, testify that there were explosives in WTC7 because, from what I have heard of his testimony, he did not encounter any. Rather, he witnessed serious damage to the interior of the building and heard explosions. It is a common assumption in 9/11 conspiracy theories that any explosion MUST be caused by a bomb, which is clearly not the case. Explosions can result from other sources, particularly stored fuel or pressurised containers. Similarly, the sound of falling debris within a collapsing structure could reasonably be misinterpreted as an explosion, especially by individuals such as Jennings who are not demolitions experts.
Consider this. You accuse the NIST and BBC of bias. Yet in your post the evidence for your claims are based around observations from footage taken on the day of the attacks, while the conclusions drawn by the NIST and reported by the BBC come from years of study, research and investigation, which you dismiss out of hand because the conclusions happen to contradict your own assumptions about what had happened.
Let me run that by you again. You are dismissing years of in depth investigation by trained experts with professional backgrounds relevant to the matter at hand on the basis of what "appears" to be happening on TV footage of the event. And that means the BBC is biased?
Complain about this comment
"hardly an independent investigative source, Mike."
Just for the record, what would be an independent invesitgative source, by the conspiracy theorists' criteria?
"head honcho's of the media / industrial / military / governemntal complex that we live in"
The above sentence is why it remains impossible to take the "alternative media" seriously. Have you ever heard a more vague and non-specific attempt to sum up the "powers that be"?
Quite how any of the millions of people required for a conspiracy involving the media, industry (all of it?), the military and the governments have managed to keep quiet so far is pretty amazing wouldn't you say?
Complain about this comment
"Obviosly you believe in coincidence theories and you are welcome to that. All the stuff the alt. media talk about must not exist, Ludlow never happened, Iran-contra was a one off, The gulf of tonkin incident is just a story"
Thats rather my point. These things DID happen and the truth came out quickly. The sailors at the gulf of Tonkin talked. NO-ONE out of the 100's if not 1000's of people involved if 9/11 was a conspiracy have ever come out. The Bush regime is one of the most incompetent ever yet they managed to keep all this secret? Is that REALLY plausible?
Complain about this comment
Hmm lets see... first steel framed buildings to collapse due to fire in history .... any more since?.... nope ... First time of total collapse of tall steel buildings due to fire without planes... any more since .... nope? Independent investigation into the causes by non US government agencies? .... nope. Detailed instructions about how to modify building codes to make all the other steel framed skyscrapers in the world safe? .... nope ....
Absolutely no mystery here.
Complain about this comment
To the guy claiming that the ALT media "have been reporting on the present banking collapse for the last few years, everything they have reported was being planned to happen, has happened exactly that way they said it would."
You miss out an important point - the ALT media has been predicting the collapse of the capitalist system since the 1880s, when it was done on pamphlets.
There are a lot of good independent media organisations, but ALT media offers not an 'alternative view' but a view of an alternate universe, in which we do not reside.
Also, it's amazing that every Star Trek fan/conspiracy theorist is now an expert in the use of explosives, controlled demolitions and air defence. Seriously guys...
Complain about this comment
Do not be too intimidated to address the question of the three MOSSAD teams who were following the bombers in the USA
and did not give useful warning to the US authorities
and their "Urban Moving Systems " team who set up to photograph the falling towers
and danced and gave themselves "high-fives" when the buildings collapsed
and then told the police
"the Palestinians did it".
Do you need links or ar you just afraid to address the issue?
______________________
hahah are you just making things up now?
How about the guys with the rocket on the roof, or the fbi agent with the yellow hat who told his wife about the attack the nigth before, or the iranian jeweller who told his family to stay out of new york, or the Israeli policeman who found blueprints and kept them a secret, or the pilot of the plane who left the keys in the ignition.
See i can make up theorist nonsense as well....
There were you, see these people did you? involved were you? or did you just read this on some internet site and feel important thinking you had all the insider info that the rest of the world has missed.
Please.....I'm all for people offering theories but don't tell me I'm "afraid" or not intelligent enough just because I haven't wet myself over another crackpot story!
Complain about this comment
Oh... Just one more thing, about being able to pull the wool over peoples eyes, where do we get our news from?
How how many reporters lost their jobs because of the comments 'after' the 9/11 events..? For being un-patriotic.
And how many of those reporters who 'blurted out' comments on air, have they ever repeated them..?
We receive our reports from companies closely linked to the governments with which they report on.
Of the 'independent' reports from 'volunteers' on the devastation that occurred after the planes hit the towers, how many of those were already on government contracts worth millions of dollars, and have also won new contract tenders, worth millions more..?
Complain about this comment
NIST discusses the explosions that trapped Barry Jennings and Michael Hess inside WTC 7 for 1.5 hours (the firefighters had to help the men out). The disingenuous strategy of NIST is revealed by the following statement in their
"Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation":
"If the two loud booms were due to explosions that were responsible for the collapse of WTC 7, the emergency responder – located somewhere between the 6th and 8th floors in WTC 7 – would not have been able to survive the near immediate collapse and provide this witness account."
An explosion somewhere inside a skyscraper can obviously weaken the integrity of the building without leading to an immediate collapse; therefore, the above argument is incorrect. The role of such an explosion in a later collapse would, of course, have had to be investigated.
In the following excerpt from an investigative program by Italian TV, several loud explosions can be heard, one such explosion startling first responders close to WTC 7. In addition, a police officer can be seen and heard stating repeatedly, referring to WTC 7, that "the building is about to blow up".
"Seven is exploding"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nu1VLMVv08s
If the collapse due to fires was unprecedented (as NIST says) and caused by a specific chain reaction that NIST discovered only during the last 1.5 years of their investigation, how did CNN know well in advance that the skyscraper was "poised to collapse" (approximately 15 minutes before actual collapse) and then "on verge of collapse" (approximately 1.5 minutes before actual collapse)?
Complain about this comment
" this doesn't explain why building 7 fell at speeds close to that of gravity"
Gravity doesn't have a speed. The building fell BECAUSE of gravity, which presumably causes objects to fall at 9.6 metres per second per second in New York too.
Complain about this comment
seamilliman,
the Bush administration is not at all incomperent: they have managed to get away with everything they have wanted - including every illegal action imaginable, and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are producing vast amounts of money for the military-industrial complex.
And, by the way, operation Gladio in Cold War Europe, in which hundreds of civilians were murdered in false-flag terrorist attacks blamed on the Left, was kept secret for 45 years. How come nobody confessed? O sancta simplicitas!
And incidentally, Italy's ex-president Francesco Cossiga, who was originally setting up Gladio and had to acknowledge the existence of the secret armies in 1990, has said that 9/11 was also a false-flag operation carried out by intelligence agencies. Could Cossiga know what he is talking about?
http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/
Complain about this comment
Don't mention this organisation in any of your posts... They're censoring any submissions, I don't know why I'm sending this either, it will probably not be listed...
Complain about this comment
how did CNN know well in advance that the skyscraper was "poised to collapse" (approximately 15 minutes before actual collapse) and then "on verge of collapse" (approximately 1.5 minutes before actual collapse)?
___________
This is what is known as conjecture, I'm sure it became obvious the building was on it's way down seeing as it was gutted by fire and things were dropping off it.
OR do you think CNN and it's reporters were all briefed on the disaster and despite the US government planning every minute detail in the biggest coverup in human history... allowed CNN to give away the ending too early???
Seriously... open a window and get some fresh air guys
Complain about this comment
Of course it's no mystery. Anybody with working brain matter can see these were all controlled demolitions. I don't give a crap what NIST says. They're a pack of liars helping to cover up this fraud. The BBC is kind of like CNN. Full of lies/spin/half-truths and propaganda.
Complain about this comment
Skipjack451,
I agree that NIST looked briefly at the idea of explosives, and then decided it was implausible because of the lack of noise or video evidence. However, one possibility worth investigating, thermate, does not make the same noise as demolition charges, so I can't see why NIST wouldn't look into this, for the sake of their own reputations, as professionals.
Also, there are a lot of witnesses who say they heard and felt huge explosions, and as I mentioned above, there is video evidence of what looks like charges going off.
And the speed of collapse suggests to me, that WTC7 could only have collapsed with the aid of explosives. I'm amazed you don't agree.
NIST didn't investigate the possibility of explosives in a professional scientific way, where you test all alternate theories, and not just one specific preapproved theory. Science is about trying to disprove the hypothesis again and again, and see which probabilities stands up to the most scrutiny. In this critical regard, NIST's report is a joke.
And there is the problem of the mainstream media refusing to show us video of WTC7 collapsing for over 5 years. When did you first hear about it Skipjack?
What do you think was the BBC's reason for this coverup of a major news event?
Also, crucially, Jennings makes the statements that the explosions were happening in WTC7 before the twin towers collapsed. Just so we're clear...the man inside WTC7 says there were explosions going off, before debris damaged the back side of the building. What caused these "explosions." Sadly, NIST hasn't been much good at helping us with this mystery.
Sure, I am relying on video evidence, and written evidence, and witness testimony, and the fact I have studied WTC7 and other anomolies of 9-11 for the last 7 years. You are relying on Sunder's words, even though he didn't bother to test all possible theories for collapse. He doesn't sound like a very thorough investigator to me.
I think this is a case of, you can fall some of the people, some of the time.
Complain about this comment
Well, CNN and the BBC did not merely report that the building was damaged or that it might collapse; they prematurely *announced* its actual collapse (especially the BBC).
Another example. Consider the following from the FDNY oral histories:
Q. "Were you there when building 7 came down in the afternoon?"
A. "Yes."
Q. "You were still there?"
A. "Yes, so basically they measured out how far the building was going to come, so we knew exactly where we could stand."
Q. "So they just put you in a safe area, safe enough for when that building came down?"
A. "5 blocks. 5 blocks away. We still could see. Exactly right on point, the cloud stopped right there."
For more evidence of certainty, see
http://www.911blogger.com/node/17794#comment-197629
Window glasses typically fall off from burning buildings. Hardly enough to explain how everyone was waiting for building 7 to come down -- or to be "brought down", as one first responder, Indira Singh, testified to being told.
About the "speed of gravity": an object in free fall does not crush anything; it does not displace even air. WTC 7 descended in free fall during 2.5 seconds at the beginning of its collapse, which is a proof that all resistance was being removed by other means than gravitational crushing or twisting, which would have taken time and therefore necessarily slowed down the destruction. See the measurements in the above-linked page.
Complain about this comment
Funnily enough, one of the best consipiracy stories relates to this Glorious British organisation for Broadcasting
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/bbc_wtc7_videos.html
They told the world WTC7 was going to collapse, the same as CNN, and even if it is known as Conjecture (#44) there was no previous evidence this would happen
Complain about this comment
I'm not sure what the WHOLE truth is about 9\11 but I do know there is some degree of cover up or disinformation involved.
There are a few things that do bother me about it (whilst trying not to enter into the realms of fantasy) :-
Why is the hole in the Pentagon so small, Why are so few windows smashed, Where are the engine holes and Where is the debris and WHERE IS ALL THE FOOTAGE CONFISCATED BY THE GOVERNMENT FROM NEARBY CCTV ?
Why was one of the engines of Flight 93 found MILES away from the crash site ?
The worst of all is the 'who knew' questions and WHEN they knew ! Shocking - 3000 lives - RIP.
Complain about this comment
I don't need to read any fancy scientific report to see the truth here. Why? Because I'm a card-carrying conspiracy theorist, and I believe in the Conspiracy Creed:
1) Our explanation of events is correct
2) All other explanations of events must therefore be wrong
3) All of our evidence is correct, as it supports our explanation of events (see 1 above)
4) All other evidence is invalid, as it contradicts our explanation of events (see 2 above)
5) Any other methods of understanding events must also be wrong if they contradict our explanation e.g. reasoned argument, logic, common sense etc..
6) Any person or organisation offering such contradictory evidence must by definition be part of the conspiracy and is therefore not to be trusted or believed
So there you have it. Don't bother trying to argue with our theories, because we follow the Creed and don't need to prove anything, as whatever evidence or argument you may offer is obviously wrong.
P.S. Check out my blog where after years of research I demonstrate that NASA cannot possibly have actually landed on the moon since it is actually made of gorgonzola
Complain about this comment
So...if there is no conspiracy then why did the BBC report that Building 7 collapsed a whole 20 minutes before it actually did?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7SwOT29gbc
In these times it is best that you all should start using your own brains and not parroting what the official mainstream media ape on about and for that matter the conspiracy theorists but do some thinking for yourselves for a change.
Look at the big picture, research the Project for the New American Century www.pnac.org and take a good close look at the members of this organisation and the agenda they have put on their website.
Then take a good look of what islamic fundamentalist are about then take a look at the profile of Mohammed Atta and see if this alleged hijacker fits the the profile of an islamic fundamentalist or not?
Then take a look at who is profiting from the so-called War on Terrorism. Follow the money.
Ask yourself why Bush and Cheney both gave their statements at the same time and was never made public, think about it.
Still think a plane hit the Pentagon, even though not a single bit of wreckage from a Boeing 757 was ever found?
Ever checked the connection between Osama bin-Laden and the CIA?
Ever checked the connection between the bin-Laden and Bush families?
Why did building 7 collapse when it wasn't even the nearest tower in the WTC complex?
Just think for yourselves, the ruling elite are using divide and rule tactics with this and if you don't use your own mind then they will have won and we will all be screwed.
peace and love
Complain about this comment
"a man hears what he wants to heat and disregards the rest" as the song goes. cuts both ways, mike.
personally, I think if you believe a 47 storey skyscraper can fall neatly into its own footprint in six seconds WITHOUT THAT BEING THE INTENTION, then you are seriously deluded.
Complain about this comment
You official story coincidence theory guys are great. You brush of every piece of evidence offered, do your best to mock anyone for even questioning the official truth, accuse us of believing alternative theories as a coping stategy because we are confused about the unpredictable world. You even try saying our arguments are baseless because our punctuation is bad.
Then you say with all seriousness that it was done by a guy with a beard in a cave. He is responsible, no one else. This means we can invade, murder, rape and torture looking for him. All cos of your imaginary guy in a cave.
And we are the nutty ones.
Complain about this comment
"this doesn't explain why building 7 fell at speeds close to that of gravity"
The speed of gravity.
Another reason why these people should, generally speaking, be ignored. They repeat what they read without the slightest qualification or doubt - In fact, they approach the alt. media with precisely the same unthinking credulousness they are so quick to accuse the rest of us of having.
Complain about this comment
The U.S. National Fire Protection Association Manual for fire and explosion investigations, clearly indicates that the possibility of explosives should have been thoroughly investigated by NIST.
NFPA 921 18.3.2: "High Order Damage"
"High-order damage is characterized by shattering of the structure, producing small, pulverized debris. Walls, roofs, and structural members are splintered or shattered, with the building completely demolished. Debris is thrown great distances, possibly hundreds of feet. High-order damage is the result of rapid rates of pressure rise."
See Firefighters for 9/11 Truth,
http://firefightersfor911truth.org/
WTC 7 and the Twin Towers seem to fit this description of explosive destruction.
Complain about this comment
Frasay,
NIST hardly have a need to protect their credibility by investigating claims that thermite was used as there is no reason to suspect it was. There is plenty of evidence pointing toward a collapse caused by fire and structural damage from debris from the main towers. Not to mention that to wire a building for demolition typically takes a matter of weeks or months and would be a procedure likely to be noticed by people working in the WTC.
By your logic, NIST may as well investigate reports that the WTC was brought down by cruise missiles using holographic technology to disguise themselves as planes. Contrary to your assertation, it is in the interests of NIST's professional credibility not to pander to the absurd speculation of conspiracy theorists.
You ask where I first heard about WTC7 collapsing. Funny story. I heard about it on 9/11 when various news agencies ran features on the toll of the day's events. Later, I became quite intimately familiar with the various concerns with official story of what had happened by watching Loose Change, and following sources from David Icke to Alex Jones. Like many people here, I suspect, I had a hard time wrapping my head around what had happened. On 9/10, I was politically apathetical, only aware of issues such as terrorism through pop culture like the Tom Clancy books and video games. I felt the response to 9/11 was wrong-headed and counter-productive, not the actions of the capable, qualified people we put into power. I became convinced there was more to this than I was being told and I bought into the truth movement wholesale. And then over the next few years I matured enough to look more even-handedly at both sides and ultimately, as you can see, I've come down on the side of the official theory.
And here is, broadly, why. You say you've spent 7 years "researching" the WTC collapse. May I ask what else you have researched? What qualifications do you hold? Are you an expert in engineering, demolitions or architecture? How much of your research was conducted through the reading of web blogs and government reports, compared to say, your own, original research?
The lack of a resounding outcry from the fields I've mentioned regarding the WTC collapse, as well as the failure of the truth movement to produce notable credible testimony from same, would suggest to me that maybe, just maybe, these professionals see nothing spurious about the collapse. Combine this with Popular Mechanics and NIST both producing plausable, compelling and probable explanations for the collapse and you have a situation where it is hard to take alternative theories as anything other than, generously, a very far outside possibility.
To put a finer point on it, I would rather trust a report compiled by experts than the conjecture of people in the midst of a terrifying catastrophe. They may "think" they heard an "explosion", video footage may "look like" explosions or controlled demolition, but these are all subjective observations in mitigating circumstances and are not remotely conclusive. Their reliablity is further undermined by the failure of anyone to produce more reliable evidence of the use of explosives.
Complain about this comment
Me personally? I'd like an independent comission to take each of the points that the conspiracy theorists take, and in turn prove them wrong. Like 100% quash each of them!
The one I always remembered was the fact there was a video taken from a hotel of the plane hitting the pentagon, and the FBI arrived and confiscated it immediately after the plane hit. Now, 7 years after that event we still haven't gotten that footage back, even though it would quash so many of the conspiracy theories!
Complain about this comment
North tower collapse.
Looks riddled with explosives too me.
But then again, I'm no scientist.
http://www.livevideo.com/video/6D653044019A4672A097DC923E2782C1/9-11-north-tower-amateur-vide.aspx
Complain about this comment
Why is the hole in the Pentagon so small, Why are so few windows smashed, Where are the engine holes and Where is the debris and WHERE IS ALL THE FOOTAGE CONFISCATED BY THE GOVERNMENT FROM NEARBY CCTV ?
Why was one of the engines of Flight 93 found MILES away from the crash site ?
------------------
The wing of the Pentagon hit by the plane had recently been reinforced against explosive damage. Contrary to your assertation, windows can be seen to have been broken in the area around the impact site, as can the areas where the engines impacted, but failed to penetrate, the outer wall. Most footage and imagery of the Pentagon following the attack shows an abundance of debris both on the Pentagon lawn and within the building itself.
As for the engine of Flight 93, it is not uncommon in aircrashes for even reasonably large peices of debris to be violently ejected by both the force of impact and the convection caused by the intense fireball. Additionally, claims about the disribution of wreckage are heavily contested between various sources across both main and alternative media. It is entirely possibly that while pieces of the engine were found some distance away from the main crash site, an entire, intact engine was not.
Hank Reardon, given that you are currently trying to establish the credibility of a theory and movement widely ridiculed as both immature and irrational, it would perhaps be more constructive if you refrained from using cheap tactics such as putting words in the mouths of those who disagree with you. No one here is saying that a "man in a cave" is soley responsible for 9/11. This is a gross misrepresentation of the official story and akin to claiming that the nuclear bombing of Japan must have been a freak meteor shower because "do you really believe a bunch of guys stood around a table in Washington were responsible for the annhilation of two cities all that way away in Japan? I guess you'll believe anything, heh." I've already outlined the large number of situations and actors in my earlier post which you curiously decline to respond to.
Complain about this comment
"this doesn't explain why building 7 fell at speeds close to that of gravity"
The speed of gravity.
Another reason why these people should, generally speaking, be ignored. They repeat what they read without the slightest qualification or doubt - In fact, they approach the alt. media with precisely the same unthinking credulousness they are so quick to accuse the rest of us of having.
------------------------
Exactly.
Look at post 51:
"Just think for yourselves, the ruling elite are using divide and rule tactics with this and if you don't use your own mind then they will have won and we will all be screwed."
If you don't agree with me, then you are NOT THINKING HARD ENOUGH and TERRIBLE THINGS WILL HAPPEN TO ALL OF US QUICK YOU HAVE TO AGREE WITH ME OR THE BAD GUYS WIN CMON HURRY!
Without wanting to resort to strawman arguments, the assertation that the mainstream media routinely uses fear to manipulate public perception of issues (a claim not entirely without substance) is a common refrain in the alternative media, and yet as we see here, common also is the usage of such fear tactics in the alternative media for exactly the same purpose.
Complain about this comment
Sorry, forgot about Atta's passport being found within hours of the collapse at the wtc site ?
That one's the most laughable - it must have been one of those new bomb-proof, fire-proof ones !
Come on US govt, we are not all zipped up the back.
Complain about this comment
I am sorry Skipjack, your telling me the official story does not involve the attacks of 9/11 being
orchastrated by OBL from caves in afghanistan.
Complain about this comment
@Peter_Sym @aerokes51 etc
http://www.ae911truth.org/flashmov11.htm
Seriously, watch it. I dare you.
At the end of Mike's 9/11 documentaries, he starts to focus on the 9/11 families etc to win over your sympathy vote when that is in fact the exact opposite of the truth. Most of the 9/11 families want a new, full, independent investigation of 9/11.
These are the same families, in particular the Jersey Girls, who had to campaign for 2 years to even get an official investigation because Bush stone walled any attempts whilst simultaneously, fundamentally changing the U.S. military strategy to one of pre-emptive war.
Not to mention the initial, virtual media blackout on the estimated 50,000 9/11 heroes who are now coughing up blood and slowly dieing of cancer from breathing in the toxic clouds of asbestos that swept through New York. Many of these heroes are also calling for a new investigation.
Complain about this comment
see
http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm#Main
for the unbroken windows and lack of debris. There are other pictures and sites which also show this if you look. If the engines hit the pentagon, did they also 'bounce' miles away so they couldn't be found ?
I also remember seing the picture of a fan blade from the alleged aircraft which was about half the size it should have been.
Complain about this comment
I find Mr Rudin's complacency about building 7 and 9/11 in general disturbing.
In any major building disaster, you carefully examine the debris to determine what caused the disaster. You do this first on site and then off site as needed. What you do NOT do is recycle the debris without examination, and then commence a half-decade speculation. The way WTC 7 debris was handled should be a central concern for the BBC.
If ordinary fires (note that NIST now suddenly says debris damage and diesel had no role) can level a 47-storey steel structure in seconds to its foundations, companies specializing in the time-consuming and expensive activity of controlled demolition will have to start specializing in something else. Lighting an office fire on a few floors will do the trick just fine.
As regards WTC 7 being the "final" mystery of 9/11, I beg to differ. I still haven't heard a credible answer to the following points, presented at the Finnish Social Forum last May in a seminar entitled "9/11: a terrorist attack by Arabs or a False-Flag Operation Familiar from History?":
1) When everyone knew the country was under attack, President Bush was not carried into safety from his publicized location in the Sarasota school. [Of course, in a "real" attack the President would have been brought into an undisclosed safe location without delay. The White House's revisionist account was shown to be false by the footage shown in Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11", since then available on the net. After continuing to listen to the children's reading exercise for a good while, Bush continued his photo-op in the classroom, and then gave a press conference at the school.]
2) Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld continued his breakfast meeting while the towers were burning and didn't do anything until the third target – the Pentagon – had been attacked. [Of course, in a "real" attack the defense secretary would have responded immediately to such a calamity.]
3) The Pentagon was struck an hour and half after the attacks had started.
4) The Andrews Air Force Base, where combat units were kept ”in the highest possible state of readiness”, was only 12 miles from the Pentagon.
5) Three completely different explanations for the failure to reach any of the planes have been given. No one has been charged with lying, and no one has had to resign due to negligence. But when Matias Rust flew onto the Red Square with a small plane, heads rolled in the Soviet army.
6) Even the FBI acknowledged in 2006 that it has "no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11". Yet Afghanistan was officially invaded in search of Osama, while Saddam was accused of complicity in the attacks in cooperation with Osama.
7) Many professional pilots have said they could not have performed the required maneuvers. The alleged hijackers, in turn, had only flown small planes, and many poorly at that.
8) Simultaneously with the attacks, an anti-hijacking exercise was going on.
9) The Bush administration fought against the establishment of the 9/11 Commission for over 400 days, then manned it with its "trusted persons".
10) WTC: the total destruction of three skyscrapers in seconds; the numerous (ignored) accounts of explosions; the near-total destruction of the steel debris without investigation.
11) Qui bono? Who profited? The attacks provided the desired impetus for the military-industrial complex, triggered "a war that will not end in our lifetime" wherever desired, and legitimated increasingly Orwellian laws, a "national security state", repression of citizens' rights, illegal spying, Guantanamo, and torture.
12) The anthrax letters posted soon after the 9/11 attacks. The bacteria used in the letters were traced to a U.S. military laboratory, after which the investigation came to a halt. Two Senators received a letter. They had delayed the passing of the 342-page Patriot Act legislation, written before the attacks but rushed through under the pretext of the attacks.
Complain about this comment
# 38
Those interested can get the facts for themselves:
Google:
MOSSAD + "Urban Moving Systems" + "Twin Towers" + "white van"
In fact, there were three identified MOSSAD teams. The "Urban Moving Systems" was arrested and eventually repatriated to Israel
and Israel apologized.
It was all in the New York area newspapers and is still available, including a video of the MOSSAD team dancing and doing "high-fives" as the building came down.
One lawyer spent several months tracing all three MOSSAD groups and supplied his information to all concerned.
This is easily available public information.
It is unfortunate, but typical, that an Israeli sympathizer would seek to denigrate such facts.
If any decent and honest Americans are interested but have trouble finding the facts, speak up.
Complain about this comment
http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/Pentagon_debris for a large collection of images showing substantial amounts of debris at the Pentagon including many pieces that are clearly part of an aeroplane. The presence of some unbroken windows around the impact site is remarkable, but hardly a smoking gun given that that area had been hardened against bomb attacks sometime earlier. Additionally, there are a large number of witnesses, the majority of witnesses to the attack, in fact, who report seeing a passenger plane flying into the Pentagon. If Jennings' testimony is enough for the truth movement to conclude that there were bombs in WTC7 then surely the scores of witnesses to the impact of a plane at the Pentagon should put that question to rest also?
Hank, I am not telling you that OBL was not responsible in some operational capacity for 9/11, a position which I think I made quite clear in my previous post, but I'll bite anyway. To spell it out for you, while OBL is partly responsible, he is not solely responsible. The organisation of Al-Qaeda carries the bulk of the responsibility from a legal standpoint, but in security and analytical terms, the attacks themselves came about at the intersection of a number of other actors and circumstances I have outlined earlier. My point is that to place blame squarely on one evil entity, be it a shadowy conspiracy or a swarthy group of freedom-hating terrorists, is a gross oversimplification of how the world really works and is aimed more at giving simple, reassuring answers to difficult questions than exploring the truth. Perhaps in this way I disagree with the "official story" just as much as I disagree with the alternatives put forward from other sources. In any case, to me it seems that a deep, broad understanding of the causes of 9/11 drawn from across the spectrum of international politics, security, economics and sociology will always been more robust, reliable and useful than the eager acceptance of simplistic hate figures.
Complain about this comment
Can people please stop with the ludicrous defence that any inside job would have to involve hundreds, whereas the official conspiracy only involved 2 dozen.
When bank robbers knock over a branch with the help of a cashier with a gambling problem, we don't assume that the managers and directors of the bank are up to their necks in it.
9/11 anomalies are so thick on the ground that clues like the miraculous passport, the left behind baggage etc. have the appearance of a false trail.
I'm still interested in the identified hijackers who turned up alive. The FBI has never changed its original list of perpetrators.
The failure to launch a single fighter to defend the Pentagon still awaits coherent explanation.
The involvement of the Pakistani ISI - original nursemaids of Taliban and al Qaeda is another aspect rarely aired.
So far the BBC has only addressed the abysmal Loose Change conspiracy rubbish. They have failed completely to address the difficult questions.
Complain about this comment
As to cui bono?
The leader of the group told the police "the Palestinians did it".
It was unfortunate that, although the MOSSAD groups had lots of information about what was going on, no useful info was communicated to the US authorities.
They seemed to enjoy photographing the Towers coming down and danced, giving each other "high-fives"!
Now, what do you suppose their purpose was?
Google "Urban Moving Systems" (Weehauken, N.J.) and start finding out.
Complain about this comment
For alternative media:
Infowars.com
911blogger.com
ae911truth.org
Google:
911 thermite
911 molten metal
Operation Northwoods
With just a little investigation you will find that the 911 Truth movement has extremely qualified individuals and the evidence is much more than compelling.
I came to believe that 911 was a 'false flag' operation by our government about 6 months ago due to the evidence shown. This was mainly due to the molten metal flowing out of one of the towers, thermite (incendiary) samples found in several locations, and the video and photos of tons of molten metal found in the basements of all three collapsed buildings.
As a conservative born-again Christian republican, I had to abandon my support for the current administration, the Iraq war, and the neocon agenda. Our government does not share my values or this would not have happened.
Complain about this comment
Marcus Aurelius 11 wrote:
'It is virtually certain that NIST got the correct answer. In all likelihood the fire was fed by diesel fuel from a storage tank which continued to pump. Once ignited when the critical air fuel mixture in the fumes came in contact with a source of ignition, the fuel continued to burn.'
Your chums at NIST have totally discounted this. Why don't you dip into their final report for a few chuckles? They say the collapse wasn't caused by oil ignition nor by debris from other buildings - but purely by office fires which burn for around twenty to thirty minutes maximum. 'Thermal expansion' was the result. I'm surely many a science student will be scratching his/her head.
Complain about this comment
So you now are saying you don't actually believe the official explanation. Your going to back it and attack anyone who questions it, even though you have issues with it yourself.
well that makes sense
As i say, we are only morally responsible to ourselves.
Complain about this comment
Re#51: ".if there is no conspiracy then why did the BBC report that Building 7 collapsed a whole 20 minutes before it actually did?"
They made a mistake. If "incompetence" and "conspiracy" both could provide the answer, vote "incompetence" every time.
Particularly in this case, when the reporter reported the building had come down when it was on screen behind her... it makes her look stupid, rather than part of a conspiracy...
Complain about this comment
#73
I agree, it does her look very stupid, that is without a doubt and really doesn't need mentioned, however who gave her the information that it had collapsed and why had they not checked this information before going to air with it?
You used the word conspiracy not me, but with what we know and what has occured you have to look at the overall big picture and ask questions and find the information out for yourself.
Whatever happened on 9/11 it was wrong but to use it as a justification for war is also wrong - how can you ever bring peace by the barrel of a gun?
Fear and hate have only ever brought more fear and hate.
Just saying, keep an open mind and think for yourself - not like me because you're not me :)
peace
Complain about this comment
In 1998 29 people ( including children) were killed by a bomb in Omagh Northern Ireland.
A Panorama program on 14 October 2008 revealed that the government monitoring facility at GCHQ Cheltenham had overheard the bomber's mobile phone calls preparing to and laying the bombs. The information they had could either have saved lives if acted upon at that time or aided the police in their investigations so that critical forensic evidence could have been used to convict these criminals - remember in the UK terrorism is a criminal offence not an act of war. This information was never passed on to the police . This has prevented any satisfactory investigation taking place . I find it totally implausible that the US monitoring facilities failed to notice anything amiss at the relevant time on September 11 ( I refuse to demean the victims of this act by referring to it merely as a number) and no action taken by the security forces . Strangely the culprits were already known by nightfall.
Complain about this comment
What's interesting is that last year Richard Porter wrote in his blog, which you can find on this very site, the following with regard to the early reporting of building 7.
'Nobody told us what to say or do on September 11th. We didn't get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down. We didn't receive press releases or scripts in advance of events happening.'
this year we are told the following by Mike Rudin
"It turns out that the respected news agency Reuters picked up an incorrect report and passed it on. They have issued this statement:
"On 11 September 2001 Reuters incorrectly reported that one of the buildings at the New York World Trade Center, 7WTC, had collapsed before it actually did. The report was picked up from a local news story and was withdrawn as soon as it emerged that the building had not fallen."
Mike seems to be implying that Reuters told the BBC. Richard says nobody told them.
They can't both have been right can they?
Just as the NIST report has been changed many times and every time is the only logical conclusion. I am sure the BBC will keep changing the story with regards to the early reporting and each and every one will be obviously what happened.
Complain about this comment
It is very simple.
1. Around 5:00 EST CNN in USA reported that WTC7 was collapsing or was going to collapse. Around 5:00 EST BBC mistakenly reported that WTC7 had collapsed. Of course the intended message of BBC's source was that the building was surely going to fall. Shortly after 5:00 EST CBS in USA announced that WTC7 would collapse soon and kept a camera on the building until it fell. Video from Der Tag can still be seen showing emergency workers warning people that WTC7 is going to collapse. A demolitions expert who was on scene has stated that his own analyst, also on scene, told authorities around 1:00 EST that WTC7 would collapse at about 5:00.
2. NIST spent several years looking into more than one possible reason for WTC7's collapse. This means that the cause was unknown. NIST has found that the cause was an unprecedented, unpredictable phenomenon.
(1) and (2) are contradictory. Both cannot be true. (1) is provably true. It is recorded that the collapse was predicted. The predictions were correct. Therefore, (2) cannot be true. Further, NIST's denial by omission of (1) is proof that NIST is lying.
Complain about this comment
I never realised there were so many people with such empty lives that they decided to dedicate there time to proving the unprovable.
Your preaching and attempts at conversion would make even the Christian church proud.
Believe what you want, aliens, giants, whatever. Just spare us your preachy rubbish about what we should accept as the truth and keep it in your darkened room where you are obviously typing from.
You know maybe you should get out more, enhance your life with productivity rather than filling the obviously massive void in your lives with pointless and wasted theories.
The moon landing theorists, JFK theorists.... have they got anywhere after 40 years??
No they haven't...... stop wasting your lives!!!
Complain about this comment
I am on the fence about 9/11- the thing I find hardest to buy is all this molten steel under all 3 buildings- I means that just shouldnt be there under any scenario-
Did the new NIST report explain this?
Complain about this comment
I have no problem listening to conspiracy theories, weighing up the ideas discussed and coming to my own conclusion. The problem here is that people who believe in this theory are being lumped in with those that have genuine concerns about issues normally considered conspiracy theories, such as Bilderberg and The Trilateral Commission. In amongst the madness hides some deeper more worrying truth. If the WTC7 conspiracy has done it's made a lot of you dismissive of things you should be concerned about.
Complain about this comment
Frasay,
"NIST hardly have a need to protect their credibility by investigating claims that thermite was used as there is no reason to suspect it was. "
Actually, Skipjack, as "experts"(your words later in your post), and considering the incredibly suspect nature of the collapse, and subsequent mass media coverup, it should have been NIST's duty to investigate and prove/disprove all claims. That's how science works. It seems like you missed the whole point of my last post.
You say:
"There is plenty of evidence pointing toward a collapse caused by fire and structural damage from debris from the main towers. "
Since WTC7 was the first steel frame highrise to collapse from fire, there is actually no prior evidence to support your theory. None, until 9-11. Let's stick to the facts please.
You say:
"Not to mention that to wire a building for demolition typically takes a matter of weeks or months and would be a procedure likely to be noticed by people working in the WTC."
I am fairly sure British soldiers wired large steel bridges over a matter of hours during wartime. It can be done. Regardless, you appear to believe fire melted one column, and a few floors, which lead to total collapse at near free fall speed, and then you switch to the official theory that a whole building would have had to be wired over weeks to initiate collapse? Which is it? A few hours, or weeks?
You say:
"By your logic, NIST may as well investigate reports that the WTC was brought down by cruise missiles using holographic technology to disguise themselves as planes. Contrary to your assertation, it is in the interests of NIST's professional credibility not to pander to the absurd speculation of conspiracy theorists."
Please don't speak for me. I don't believe in holographs or ridiculous theories. But it is in the interests of everyone to get to the truth. Sure, they should have disproved everything. That was NIST's duty. Sadly, they failed in that duty, completely.
You say:
"You ask where I first heard about WTC7 collapsing. Funny story."
I heard about it on 9/11 when various news agencies ran features on the toll of the day's events.
What's "funny" about mass murder? People died, and are dying. Have some respect.
You say:
"Later, I became quite intimately familiar with the various concerns with official story of what had happened by watching Loose Change, and following sources from David Icke to Alex Jones."
How curious that you mention 2 of the most radical commentators regarding 9-11. Icke comes across pretty badly, and while I think Jones heart is probably in the right place, neither of these guys speak for me.
You say:
"Like many people here, I suspect, I had a hard time wrapping my head around what had happened. On 9/10, I was politically apathetical, only aware of issues such as terrorism through pop culture like the Tom Clancy books and video games. I felt the response to 9/11 was wrong-headed and counter-productive, not the actions of the capable, qualified people we put into power. I became convinced there was more to this than I was being told and I bought into the truth movement wholesale. And then over the next few years I matured enough to look more even-handedly at both sides and ultimately, as you can see, I've come down on the side of the official theory."
I'm not a test audience, and I don't bother with Clancy, and how you felt on 9/10 isn't relevant to this blog. Again, you words really make me wonder about your sincerity.
You say:
"And here is, broadly, why. You say you've spent 7 years "researching" the WTC collapse. May I ask what else you have researched? What qualifications do you hold?"
No, you may not ask, because this is a confidential blog, but I am happy to debate you in person, any time you like. I am am academic, and am confident I would take you to the cleaners.
You say:
"...Combine this with Popular Mechanics and NIST both producing plausable, compelling and probable explanations..."
Curious again, how you mention the Pop Mechanics article, co-written by Michael Chertoff, head of FEMA's cousin, Brian. Oh, and the official Government sponsored NIST report. Personally, I'll believe my own eyes, over a relative of "we dodged the bullit."
You say:"
To put a finer point on it, I would rather trust a report compiled by experts than the conjecture of people in the midst of a terrifying catastrophe. They may "think" they heard an "explosion", video footage may "look like" explosions or controlled demolition, but these are all subjective observations in mitigating circumstances and are not remotely conclusive. Their reliablity is further undermined by the failure of anyone to produce more reliable evidence of the use of explosives."
Ok, so you think you know more then the fire fighters, and reporters, and victims on the scene. Can I ask where this arrogance comes from?
Maybe you can answer my questions from my earlier post. Why did the media refuse to show us the collapse of WTC7 for over 5 years?
Complain about this comment
NO YOU'RE ALL WRONG!
It was the 8ft lizardmen fro outer space!
Just ask David Icke.
;)
Complain about this comment
I strongly suspect that some losely connected and barely identifiable group, to achieve their own despicable ends, is propounding multiple conspiracy theories.
Complain about this comment
The commissioner of FDNY in Oct of 2001 commissioned the recording of personal testimonies of the firefighters and personnel involved in the events of the day. That record, known as the Oral Histories, collected over 500 statements. It contains 178 accounts by 118 eyewitnesses of explosions either seen, heard, or felt, some accounts including all three experiences. In many accounts the explosions were synchronous, and regular, in patterns. In several accounts three large explosions were heard just prior to the tower coming down. It is little wonder, the Guiliani administration immediately sequestered that record, not allowing it to be made public until 2005, and then only after a Freedom of Information Act request was agreed to.
Whether it was WTC 1, WTC 2, or WTC 7, collapse by fire (never mind that NO steel framed building had ever completely collapsed due to fire before) would not produce symmetrical, sudden, complete failure in all three buildings. Nor would common office building fires result in molten iron running in the basements of all three buildings "like lava" for weeks after the event, as several firefighters, among many others, witnessed. The thermodynamics of office building fires has never produced that result.
NIST explains the "fire induced" collapse of WTC 7 as due to a totally new concept... thermal expansion... and that phenomenon resulted in complete, symmetrical, sudden, free-fall collapse. Laws of physics have been re-written or ignored to achieve such an outcome.
The Ny Ballot Initiative has collected over 30,000 signatures calling for a new independent, impartial investigation, with subpoena power, to re-evaluate the events of 9/11. Former Senator Lincoln Chaffee of Rhode Island is involved in the effort, as are other notables. The official conspiracy theory contains so many obvious contradictions, it is entirely reasonable and proper to question it.
As it has jump-started the war policy of the largest military machine on the planet, resulting in hundreds of thousands of deaths, Orwellian security measures, torture as official US policy, from a highly secretive, hyper-militarized, right-wing regime, it is absolutely necessary to understand what actually happened and whether ostensible incompetence in allowing the attacks to occur was in fact willful and deliberate. Such actions are certainly not without precedent by secretive, hyper-militarized, right-wing regimes of the past.
Complain about this comment
Defenders of the official account of 9/11 would have you believe there are no credible critics of the official account. However, consider the following:
- Raymond McGovern, PhD, former Chairman of the CIA's National Intelligence Estimates (NIE) and 27-year CIA veteran. "I think at simplest terms, there's a cover-up. The 9/11 Report is a joke."
(According to the CIA, NIE's are "the most authoritative written judgments concerning national security issues")
- William Christison, former Director of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political Analysis, overseeing 250 CIA analysts. 29-year CIA veteran. "I now think there is persuasive evidence that the events of September did not unfold as the Bush administration and the 9/11 Commission would have us believe. ... An airliner almost certainly did not hit The Pentagon. ... The North and South Towers of the World Trade Center almost certainly did not collapse and fall to earth because hijacked aircraft hit them."
- Melvin Goodman, PhD, former Division Chief of the CIA's Office of Soviet Affairs and Senior Analyst from 1966 - 1990. "The final [9/11 Commission] report is ultimately a coverup. I don't know how else to describe it."
- General Albert Stubblebine, former commanding general of U.S. Army Intelligence. 32-year U.S. Army veteran. "I look at the hole in the Pentagon and I look at the size of an airplane that was supposed to have hit the Pentagon. And I said,’The plane does not fit in that hole’. So what did hit the Pentagon? What hit it? Where is it? What's going on?"
For decades, the U.S relied on these individuals to collect information essential to national security and provide critical analysis during which time the U.S. faced far more real and much more serious threats than anything today. We must not now ignore their stunning condemnation of the official account of 9/11.
Information about 1,000 other credible critics of the official account of 9/11 is available at http://PatriotsQuestion911.com/
Complain about this comment
Frasay, you are running in circles with your logic and beginning to slide toward making personal attacks by accusing me of being insincere, arrogant and lacking respect for the victims of 9/11. You will understand, then, if I only give you a brief response rather than indulge you with a point by point rebuttal.
The premise you're working from, that NIST should have tested every possible way the towers were brought down, because "that's how science works" and the collapses were "suspect" is flawed. Firstly, yes, scientific research is based upon thorough and rigorous experimentation, but the NIST report isn't scientific research, it's an investigation, and thus works upon different standards and procedures. Secondly, the collapse is only "suspect" if you have already bought into the theory that there was subterfuge involved. From an objective investigation, looking at the facts as they present themselves there is only the question of a building collapse that has no immediately apparent cause. When investigating such a situation it is reasonable that focus will be diverted to likely causes. You say yourself that holographic cruise missiles are out of the question, so I assume you are not too concerned about their omission from the report.
The wiring of a building for CONTROLLED demolition is very different from wiring a bridge for wartime demolitions.
The fact you need to be informed of this despite having dedicated so many years to researching this issue is damaging to your position, as are the following sections of your post where you at first implore me not to "speak for you" and then take the phrase "Funny story" out of context to imply that I find the attacks funny. When I ask what professional qualifications you have to back up your research, you decline. While this is your right, again, it harms your position.
Finally you accuse me of arrogance for preferring a careful investigation by qualified experts with access to the same materials as yourself and more, to the often confused and unreliable accounts of witnesses on the day. Even firemen can be wrong, as can reporters. The premature reports of the WTC7 collapse are a prime example of how chaotic communications and perceptions were on the day. I honestly cannot understand how you can genuinely, with a cool head, believe that this position is arrogance. I can only assume that this, like your eagerness to resort to personal attacks, is due to the fact that you are so devoted to your beliefs that you are unable to think clearly and critically about them. If this is so then there really is no reason for us to communicate further.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
and to 85, with regards to your list of "credible" critics, the name Albert Stubblebine immediately jumps out at me as one of the prominent figures behind the US Military's "Stargate" program, which featured, amongst other things, teams of soldiers staring at goats and dogs, attempting to use the power of their minds to stop their hearts from beating.
Stubblebine himself is notorious for repeatedly startling his secretary with loud bumps as he repeatedly walked into the wall of his office. When asked what he was doing he explained he was trying to align his molecules in such a way as to allow them to pass through the gaps imbetween the molecules in the wall.
I shit thee not, you can read all about in Jon Ronson's book "The Men Who Stare At Goats."
Complain about this comment
and to 85, with regards to your list of "credible" critics, the name Albert Stubblebine immediately jumps out at me as one of the prominent figures behind the US Military's "Stargate" program, which featured, amongst other things, teams of soldiers staring at goats and dogs, attempting to use the power of their minds to stop their hearts from beating.
Stubblebine himself is notorious for repeatedly startling his secretary with loud bumps as he repeatedly walked into the wall of his office. When asked what he was doing he explained he was trying to align his molecules in such a way as to allow them to pass through the gaps imbetween the molecules in the wall.
I kid thee not, you can read all about in Jon Ronson's book "The Men Who Stare At Goats."
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
zeitgeist
http://movielab.tv/zeitgeist-the-movie,5709.html
The rich and powerful have always manipulated the poor and ignorant, Always have, always will...
Complain about this comment
Mike,
What happened to your even handed approach?
Even high school maths catches NIST red handed. They say it wasn't a free fall collapse. Plot a graph and you find a straight line of 9.8metre per second per second. That's free fall. (Or 32 feet per second per second if you still want to be imperial).
QED
Complain about this comment
#75 "Strangely the culprits were already known by nightfall."
Not really. Each of the 4 planes were half empty. All 4 had 4 or 5 Arab men board as a group. Not hard to read the passenger lists and name the muslims. Premature perhaps to announce them but the prime suspects could have been identified within minutes.
I LOVE the idea that the greatest false flag operation in history was announced to CNN and the BBC (which just adores Bush...) before the buildings collapsed! Especially as Ted Turners wife was one of the passengers killed that day. You guys need more or less drugs than you're on at present.
Complain about this comment
The US took over 400 days to begin their charade of an investigation into the events of 911.
Normally a murder case is opened immediately following the discovery of the event, but these 3000 murders were ignored for over a year.
Normally when a plane crashes, the pieces are collected and carefully reassembled to learn exactly what happened, no matter what the cost, even if the plane crashes in the middle of the ocean.
The budget for the 911 commission was 15 million dollars.
The budget for the 911 memorial at the Pentagon, a bunch of concrete benches with little ponds of water underneath, was 22 million dollars.
There have only ever been three steel framed buildings to collapse in the history of steel framed buildings, all three on the same day.
The 911 attacks have been the excuse for the US foreign policy of premptive war.
Appart from anything it has been the apathy of the US government to investigate the events, and their bringing forth of far fetched explanations which has resulted in people starting to investigate for themselves, and if you do start to look at the available facts, there is a lot of evidence that contradicts the official conspiracy theory.
If the US government is so sure of their story, why haven't they offically charged Bin Laden, if you look on the FBI website, he is indeed most wanted, but there is no mention of 911, apparently the FBI don't have enough evidence to bring charges!
Let's have an international panel of police experts and scientists from around the world conduct a non government sponsored investigation, and really find out, most of the 911 truthers want another investigation, if the official story is so sound and correct what do the "offical story freaks" have to worry about? Everything will check out and lead us back to Bin laden and the box cutters.
Complain about this comment
Its funny that the things that probably were covered up seem to have been missed by the 'alt media' (whatever that is)
I personally reckon that the plane that crashed in pennsylvania was shot down and that the shoot-down was 'covered up' to protect the poor fighter pilot from a zillion dollar lawsuit from the victims families. Presumably this is far too simple and not sinister enough for you guys though.
Equally with JFK have you ever considered that the US government had proof castro and or the russians did it but reckoned revenge for one philandering president wasn't worth WW3 so didn't reveal what fully happened? Again the concept of government REALLY acting for the greater good escapes you.
Complain about this comment
"If the US government is so sure of their story, why haven't they offically charged Bin Laden, if you look on the FBI website, he is indeed most wanted, but there is no mention of 911, apparently the FBI don't have enough evidence to bring charges!"
There isn't any evidence at all that Hitler knew about the final solution. Why don't you argue a case for his innocence too?
Complain about this comment
Skipjack,
Yeah, I was at a party last night and wrote back to you a little hammered, sorry about my tone, and bizarre logic.
You seem to still be ignoring a lot of evidence to make the official version fit.
Barry Jennings was in WTC7 when explosions were throwing him around. This was before the twin towers fell.
There are numerous video accounts of rescue workers saying WTC7 is about to come down, even though fire had never brought down a steel building.
It clearly looks like all structural supports were taken out at the same time, to achieve such fast collapse. There is clearly almost zero resistance from the structure.
Yes, it's different wiring a bridge to wiring a building, but not necessarially any easier to do without being noticed. My point was, some people are pretty good at covertly planting demolitions without being caught. It's disingenious to say someone would have noticed, because people did notice power downs, and removal of bomb sniffer dogs, and fine dust all over the building.
The evidence is all there to support controlled demolition. European demolitions professional Danny Jowenko appears to agree that WTC7 is controlled demolition.
Glad to hear you don't regard the NIST report as scientific. Neither do it. It's pretty flimsy.
Complain about this comment
@ Peter Sym
I didn't say he was innocent.
I said lets have a proper investigation.
Don't you think it strange that the FBI have never charged him? Wouldn't you expect that?
And it's not me that says they don't have enough evidence, it was Robert Mueller head of the FBI who stated it.
And how does Bin Laden compare to Hitler anyway, where did that come from?
Complain about this comment
It really doesn't seem to matter which side of the arguement you fall on, I've talked to both sides extensively.
Official line believers in general don't really want to ask the right questions about the hundreds of descrepencies that day and the 911 truth brigade won't believe a word the government or the BBC come out with at this point in time.
So it seems we will all have to wait at least 30 years till declassified documents answer some of the more pertinent questions.
Complain about this comment
I can understand that the official story wonks find their ego gets in the way when they are faced with the idea that they have been lied to.
But when they start just making things up like
"Ted Turners wife was in one of the planes"
It all gets quite comical.
Ted Turners wife was not in any plane and survived 9/11 without any problems.
Some even go as far to say that they know they were lied to about 9/11 or have 'issues' with areas of the official story but still stick to their 'man in a cave' coincidence or complexity theory.
Or they make up the most ridiculous counter arguments.
"No evidence Hitler knew about the final solution" or "albert stubblemine made men stare at goats"
what these have to do with 9/11 I have not a clue, but you are all coming across a bit desperate if this is your argument against a new investigation.
Complain about this comment
The ted turners wife thing seems wrong. However if you can find a single document Hitler signed relating to the final solution you've done better than every historian and war crime investigator since 1945.
Complain about this comment
As if we needed more fuel for conspiracy theories
Barry Jennings was has been found dead.
The cause of death is unknown as of yet, but he was only 53 years old.
He spoke truth and now is dead.
Complain about this comment
#102 they killed him 7 years afterwards? Why not a heart attack on the 12th of Sept 2001? has Bush run out of murder squads?
Complain about this comment
Peter it was you who stated Ted turners wife died and now your accepting that it doesn't sound right. Not many of your arguments do sound right. At least your holding your hand up here and saying you have got your facts completely wrong.
So your wanting some kind of document which proves Hitler knew about the final solution.
If i could find one like the 'PNAC:rebuilding americas defenses' document, would that be the kind of thing that would satisfy you.
Complain about this comment
I am not saying he was killed by anyone. you have jumped to that conclusion yourself.
Complain about this comment
Hank, my point about Hitler is that he almost certainly VERBALLY ordered his minions to do something about the Jews, but he didn't actually sit down and draft the final solution himself. As a result proving he knew anything at all is virtually impossible, although no sane person would argue that he was innocent. That is the situation with Bin Ladin. Ideological figurehead with minions following his philosophy but not necessarily his direct written orders. It makes proving anything hard.
Complain about this comment
All we can do is laugh folks — a bit of pointing wouldn't go amiss as well. Here we have a US Government agency (NIST) practically making up new science to explain the freefall, symmetrical collapse of a giant, complex steel structure (Building 7). Perhaps the steel was actually wax, and we should ensure that cowboy builders (sorry, Dubya) can no longer endanger the public with their shoddy costcutting. An investigation should be launched immediately into the endemic use within the construction industry of this inferior steel-coated wax substitute.
Dear dear mike...you sound like an intelligent man as well.
Lunatics...asylum...you know the saying?
Time to laugh and point.
Complain about this comment
Peter,
OBL 6 days after 9/11 denied any responsibilty of the attacks. The FBI have never charged him and even Dick Cheney admits OBL not responsible. Yet no same person would argue he wasn't responsible.
What makes proving anything hard is when you have to make points to people who make things up. Who have a sketchy at best understanding of the issues involved and refuse to address any points you make.
From the most obvious oddities like Bush being left to teach a class about a goat when his secret service should have been rushing him out the room to the phonecalls that happened, were reported and then found to not have happened. Ted/Barbara Olsen for example.
But your happy that Bin laden is responsible and have no issue with us killing, raping and torturing to find him.
Complain about this comment
Maybe Bin Laden has been dead for years?...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnychOXj9Tg
I posted this video earlier:
http://www.livevideo.com/video/6D653044019A4672A097DC923E2782C1/9-11-north-tower-amateur-vide.aspx
Did anyone watch it?
No one got anything to say about it?
Make it 'full-screen' and tell me the North Tower wasn't wired with explosives.
Complain about this comment
OSAMA BINLADEN HAS * NOT * BEEN CHARGED for 9/11!
There is NO HARD EVIDENCE connecting him with 9/11
Go to fbi.gov and see for yourself.
http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm
If you are still laboring under this dillusion, WAKE UP!
For 7 years you have been told every day that Osama binLaden was behind 911
You have been LIED TO since day 1.
How can you still trust the BBC or any other so called news organization when they have been lying to you for 7 years about a critical element of the official conspiracy theory?
You believe because it has been repeated over and over again.
So i will repeat again
OSAMA BINLADEN HAS * NOT * BEEN CHARGED WITH THE MASS MURDER ON 9/11 !
Complain about this comment
If 911 was indeed an example of a elaborate right wing governmental plot to fund the US military industrial structure and serve as justification for a Middle East oil/land grab masquerading as a fight against terror and also a whitewash of the scandals of Corporate America (Have I got this right?) then surely an impending change in US administration will remove the smoke and mirrors and the truth will start to emerge? Or are Obama and the Clintons involved in the cover-up as well?
Complain about this comment
redmichael: ignoring the fact that substandard steel HAS been used in buildings on many occasions there is no need to make up any new science. Steel melts at approx 1400'c but the steel didn't have to melt to lose structural integrity. At 500'C - cherry red- it loses much of its strength, which is how blacksmiths bend it into horseshoes. In addition rivet holes would swell seriously weakening cross pieces.
The fire in the channel tunnel last week hit over 1000'c with just burning trucks in poor air. What was the windspeed 70 floors up on 9/11? It would be like a blast furnace.
Equally the idea that the building would collapse all at once isn't far fetched. Hold 10 pencils between your hands and bend them: when 1 snaps the other 9 will go at the same time. As soon as one pillar went in tower 7 the others would fail under the excess stress.
If there's any conspiracy on 9/11 its that the WTC wasn't the best built building in the world.
Complain about this comment
"I agree, it does her look very stupid, that is without a doubt and really doesn't need mentioned, however who gave her the information that it had collapsed and why had they not checked this information before going to air with it?"
Maybe, and this is just a suggestion, but maybe September the 11th 2001 was quite a busy news day?
I don't think it's inconveivable that across hundreds of channels providing 24-hour rolling coverage of the destruction of a large area of one of the most densely populated cities on earth, one or two mistakes were made.
Complain about this comment
Hi
It really amuses me that people feel the US government was able to pull off 9/11 as a conspiracy but were then unable to 'find' weapons of mass destruction in the middle of a desert!
So in a conspiracy involving hundreds of people, who were themselves surrounded by thousands of people who might 'catch' them, the US government were successful and yet in the middle of a desert surrounded by nobody but who they decided could be there - nothing.
Odd isn't it!
Yours
Lawrence
Complain about this comment
"As if we needed more fuel for conspiracy theories
Barry Jennings was has been found dead.
The cause of death is unknown as of yet, but he was only 53 years old.
He spoke truth and now is dead."
Erm, that's evidence of one thing and one thing only - Conspiracy theorists are mortal.
"He spoke the truth and is now dead"?
Frankly, that kind of insinuation should be beneath most of us.
Complain about this comment
"But your happy that Bin laden is responsible and have no issue with us killing, raping and torturing to find him"
No I'm not. If you look at other posts I've made in other debates you'll see I'm anything but happy about how the war on terror is being fought. EVERYTHING that happened during the invasion of Iraq happened in 1917 when Britain was there. Anyone who'd read seven pillars of wisdom by TE Lawrence would have know what not to do.
Complain about this comment
People say I waste my life investigating 9/11 - yet just look at the ding-dongs on this blog!? Doesn't it look as though it needs investigating to clear all this up?
A 9/11 Truth movie was shown on prime time TV in Russia - the Russians now no longer believe Bush's official story... so to clear that up then surely, we should have just done what should have been done right from the start: a full, independent investigation into 9/11 (just like the majority of the 9/11 families want) with proper forensics, air crash investigations, scientific articles and open testamony.
It hasn't been done. And frankly that does make the Bush Administration look complicit with the crime.
Complain about this comment
"No, you may not ask, because this is a confidential blog, but I am happy to debate you in person, any time you like. I am am academic, and am confident I would take you to the cleaners."
"I am am academic"
Yes of course you are. Because a respected academic would spend his time on the BBC website arguing about preposterous conspiracy theories.
Complain about this comment
"I posted this video earlier:
http://www.livevideo.com/video/6D653044019A4672A097DC923E2782C1/9-11-north-tower-amateur-vide.aspx
Did anyone watch it?
No one got anything to say about it?
Make it 'full-screen' and tell me the North Tower wasn't wired with explosives."
I watched it, and I think you're right, it wasn't wired with explosives. While we can only guess, the lower windows seem to be blown out by the air pressure created by thousands of tonnes of rapidly descending debris.
Of the two options (that and explosives) I'm going with the one that doesn't require hundreds of construction workers to take a secret with them to the grave, as well as miles of cables and semtex going unnoticed in a very busy office block for weeks.
That was your point, right?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Please take a bit of time to read POST 47 at the following URL :-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2008/06/controversy_and_conspiracies_2.html#commentsanchor
Complain about this comment
Of course, steel-coated wax and magic fire-resistant materials are all very funny, or rather the science-benders at NIST would be very funny if 9/11 hadn't precipiated the War on Terror, invasion of Afghanistan, Iraq War, the demonisation of Muslims and the crackdown on civil liberties.
Nothing like a "just cause", is there?
It all collapses like a house of cards without the justification of 9/11...or like Building 7!!
Oh stop, please...the irony...the gallows humour of the man...
Complain about this comment
peter sym: the fire in building seven was in the lower floors, according to NIST, not the 70th. the pencil scenario assumes that force is bearing down equally across each pencil, does it not? In B7, would this scenario not have to mean that each pencil (steel support) was weakened by fire at the same point in time and location for the upper floors to act as a load?
I would not like to try breaking 10 pencils (shouldn't that be 81?) between my palms as that would probably be quite painful!
Complain about this comment
If BBC were truly interested in fulfilling their role as the watchdog of those in power, it would investigate
- how the President of a superpower could be left in a publicized location after the attacks had started
- how the Minister of Defense of a superpower could continue his scheduled breakfast meeting while the towers were burning
- why not a single official has been fired for incompetence or lying (cf. the different explanations for lack of routine interception during the two-hour hijacking drama)
- why the weapons-grade anthrax soon after 9/11 was posted to the two Senators who had been trying to halt the reflexive passing of the Patriot Act legislation that had been waiting for the attacks, and so on and on.
- Or if we no longer need controlled demolition companies, if random damage coupled with fires, or just fires (WTC 7), are all it takes to bring steel-framed highrises to their foundations, floor by floor.
But apparently the BBC are not interested in such questions, preferring to a lapdog of those in power.
Complain about this comment
NIST was well aware of what and how nano-composites are used, but was negligent in not testing for them. Sunder claims there was no credible evidence to suspect them. He is incorrect. Multiple dust samples collected almost immediately after the collapses from several points in lower Manhattan reveal compounds that could very well indicate nano-composites. NIST has long experience with the compounds and has been negligent ignoring their possible use.
A recent BBC documentary interviewed Dr. Steven Jones, and Richard Gage, both proponents of a new investigation into the causes of the tower collapses, juxtaposing their suspicions with those of defenders of the official conspiracy theory. There was no examination of the gray area between the two sides. The controlled demolition expert said the current technology he would use to bring a building down would be loud, and break windows in a wide area. He talked about conventional tools of controlled demolition. The BBC did nothing, absolutely nothing, to examine the well documented work NIST and the US military has conducted on high tech explosives in nano-composites... the gray area.
Kevin Ryan's pdf explains more fully how involved NIST has been with these compounds for many years:
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
Dr. Steven Jones has found evidence of these compounds, with other labs confirming his results, in spite of Sunder claiming no evidence exists for their presence or use.
The BBC has not explored this gray area, leaving the hard questions unanswered. Mr. Rudin, step up, sir.
Complain about this comment
112. Peter
Sorry not true.
The steel was connected in a mesh, thermal conduction would cause the heat to be drawn away, so you would need a very intense fire to cause one part to melt,
Black smoke indicates a cool fire starved of oxygen and running out of fuel, so how come all that black smoke suddenly indicates a fire hot enough to melt steel?
Even if this impossible scenario were to be the case, there were no fires lower down buildings one and two, so how could the (Much thicker) steel at the bottom react in the same manner as the hot steel at the top?
As to shoddy construction, that is not true either, search WTC construction on Google video.
The buidlings were designed to take the impact of two 707 four engined jets and stay standing.
Floors 22 and 77 were solid steel, meaning the towers were really three solid steel boxes one on top the other reinforced with concrete.
The buildings fell at freefall speed, which is impossible without ZERO resistance.
Complain about this comment
"The buidlings were designed to take the impact of two 707 four engined jets and stay standing."
In which case the designers failed to accomplish their goal. It wouldn't be the first time engineers got their sums wrong.
Also my point is that the steel DIDN'T have to melt. Just a few hundred centigrade would SOFTEN it and expand its joints. Re-read my post especially the part about the horseshoe. red steel i.e 1/3rd of its melting point is easily bent.
Complain about this comment
Kevin Ryan discusses at:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
the list of connections NIST has with research regarding nano-composites over at least the last decade. His article appears as the first entry.
Nano-composites have been researched by NIST and the US military and can appear as a dipped, sprayed on, spin coating that has highly energetic properties. It does not create loud explosions as do traditional controlled demo compounds. Residues resembling nano-composites have been found by Dr. Steven Jones, and been confirmed by other labs. This is the crux of much of the independent scientific evidence for controlled demolition. Sunder dismissing it without conducting the research is inconclusive at best, negligent at worst.
Maybe this comment with get by the good moderators at BBC. :)
Complain about this comment
"A 9/11 Truth movie was shown on prime time TV in Russia - the Russians now no longer believe Bush's official story... so to clear that up then surely, we should have just done what should have been done right from the start: a full, independent investigation into 9/11 (just like the majority of the 9/11 families want) with proper forensics, air crash investigations, scientific articles and open testamony."
Exactly. According to an international poll, over 20 percent of Germans, for example, regard 9/11 as an inside job. In a similar poll by a Finnish newspaper, a whopping 37 percent of the over 2,700 responders in Finland regarded 9/11 as an inside job.
We Finns are familiar with false-flag operations: the Soviet attack on us in 1939 was based on one, the shelling by the Soviet army of one of their own villages, blamed on us.
Critical investigative journalism asking the really difficult questions would be the key to proving the official story. We have not seen that (or any independent and credible investigation), and this speaks volumes.
Complain about this comment
No mystery?
Key witness Barry Jennings, who appeared in the BBC documentary, is now dead.
http://www.infowars.com/?p=4602
Many other mysterious deaths this year too... No mystery? I guess not to coincidence believers!
Complain about this comment
#118, Barcelona_nil,
Yeah, I made a typo. Thanks for pointing that out.
You say...
"Because a respected academic would spend his time on the BBC website arguing about preposterous conspiracy theories."
Let's see if I've got this straight, you're spending time on this blog, criticising me for spending time on this blog? Sounds a bit hypocritical to me Barcelona_nil.
I'm just standing up for what I know to be right.
I better get back to reading all my academic stuff, and learning, and stuff. Excuse me.
Complain about this comment
Nano-thermites were developed by Lawerence Livermore National Laboratory in the 90's. Science Applications International supplied investigators to the NIST WTC studies, and has judged nano-thermite research proposals for the military and military contractors, as well as direct work with the compounds. Members of SAIC had connections with Guiliani's admin and the security upgrades performed during the 90's.
Battelle, also involved in handling the attack strain of anthrax that appeared in Dec 2001, also has long experience with nano-thermites.
NIST has direct connections with the Defense University Research Initiative on Nanotechnology also involved with nano-thermite research. NIST has its own Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology. And its Reactive Flows Group did research on nanostructured materials and high temp reactions in the mid-90's.
For Sunder to out of hand dismiss the possibility that such technology was available and possibly used, ignoring corroborated independent research that show the signature components of such nano-composites is a major failing in NIST's report and work on the WTC collapses.
Complain about this comment
Barcelona nil,
you keep saying the towers would of have to have been wired up and there would have had to have been witnesses to this happening, where are they etc etc etc.
I watched the german film about 9/11 last week, It devoted about ten minutes of the film to how floor 34, i think it was, was shut down for weeks before hand, had been stripped bare and was was being worked on all day. they carried interviews with workers from the floors above and below as well as the building manager, who confirmed that work was going on in that floor and that dust clouds would regularly come through the air vents and heavy banging at times would shake their offices.
There are loads of witnesses, why do you keep saying there isn't, or have you just never checked?
Complain about this comment
ah yes, the raging inferno that was Building Seven...except if you look at the online footage you will see a distinct absence of flames. But wait! NIST say the "raging inferno" only burned on the lower floors and for several hours (which is why none of the online footage or photos exactly show a blazing conflagration).
But wait again! If this raging inferno did indeed burn for several hours and was hot enough to weaken steel, then why didn't it reach even the upper half of the building? Was there some magic material separating the "raging inferno" in the lower floors from the still-intact upper parts of Building 7? If so, I demand that all buildings are built using this fire resistant superstuff!!
Complain about this comment
124 "how the President of a superpower could be left in a publicized location after the attacks had started"
Simple. The school was an easily defended site with clear fields of fire. Much safer than putting the president into a helicopter during an air-defence emergency! As Bush survived unscathed the agent in charge made the correct decision.
Complain about this comment
"Black smoke indicates a cool fire starved of oxygen and running out of fuel"
No it doesn't. It means a high amount of unburnt particles are in the smoke. Set fire to a tire if you want proof. Hot as hell and clouds of black smoke.
Complain about this comment
Can't imagine a conspiracy? two words: Manhattan Project. 100,000 people working on the A bomb during world war two. only a few people knew the big picture; everyone else was just working on their little piece of the puzzle.
so a few zealous uber-patriots cooked up 9/11 — a "just cause" that would bring forth their Project for the New American Century.
Who were the big pro-Iraq-war powers? US, UK, Italy, Spain and Australia. In 2003, all these leaders were devout christians. And Georgia, let's not forget, have the 3rd biggest troop contingent in Iraq. Georgia, that neocon outpost.
Plenty of commitment to a cause there...
who was in UK on 7/7? Bush, Giuliani and Netanyahu.
Motive: Peak Oil and the current financial collapse. 9/11 justifies foreign resource wars and internal repression, the latter also required to control social unrest caused by.....peak oil and current financial collapse.
we ain't seen nothing yet!
Complain about this comment
93 Peter Sym
so you are Muslim ergo you are guilty ?? . Just the same as saying I am white Christian and therefore always right..
Complain about this comment
Sorry Peter,
Dick Cheney was in his office in the white house when the attacks happened and was whisked out of there immediately. thats the white house with anti-aircraft missiles protection. Yet Dick was whisked away to a secure bunker.
Bush was in a schoolhouse in Miami he had no anti-aircraft missiles. The only real military protection would have been his limo waiting outside, with its armour plating and bomb-proofing.
So they didn't think Cheney was safe but they did think Bush was safe.
But i suppose you guys are perfectly willing to believe that the laws of physics were suspended or altered that day, so maybe your onto something with the schoolhouses of America as being equivocal to an armour plated, bomb proof building.
Would love to hear your reasoning for the Barabara Olsen phonecall or the fire-proof passport.
Complain about this comment
This is an independent critique of the WTC7 NIST report by from an organization with over 460 trained and certified architects:
"For the first time in history, normal office fires have created a total progressive collapse if the report from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) can be believed, said Richard Gage, AIA. Office fires can not melt steel, Gage claims, and NIST has neither explained the mystery of molten iron at the World Trade Center site nor considered other evidence that also suggests the use of thermate incendiary charges to cut the steel framework of 47-story Building 7."
And as I pointed out in 92, the NIST report can be easily refuted with simple maths and measurement. The building did fall at free fall speed. Even melting steel would have provided some slowing resistance.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
How could they have immediately determined that the President was safe in the school?
There was even an airport fairly close.
After the 2nd tower was struck, no one should have been able to know how many planes were involved.
But evidently they knew the head of state and all the kids were safe in the President's publicized location, so that the president could leisurely spend another half hour at the school.
Mike, are you saying there is no mystery here, either? What about the inactivity at the Andrews Air Force Base, just 12 miles from the Pentagon? Or the anti-hijacking exercise going on at the same time as the "real" attacks? Anything suspicious about these?
Complain about this comment
It is incredible to think of the money and effort spent to disprove the conspiracy angle. Unfortunately those that prescribe to conspiracy's generally don't accept reason and logic making it that much more of a futile effort. There was a recent blog on www.seniorsmoment.com explaining the same thing.
Dav
Complain about this comment
"I knew within hours of the attacks on 9/11/2001 that it was an inside job. Based on my 11-year experience as an FAA Air Traffic Controller in the busy Northeast corridor, including hundreds of hours of training, briefings, air refuelings, low altitude bombing drills, being part of huge military exercises, daily military training exercises, interacting on a routine basis directly with NORAD radar personnel, and based on my own direct experience dealing with in-flight emergency situations, including two instances of hijacked commercial airliners, I state unequivocally; There is absolutely no way that four large commercial airliners could have flown around off course for 30 to 60 minutes on 9/11 without being intercepted and shot completely out of the sky by our jet fighters unless very highly placed people in our government and our military wanted it to happen."
(Robin Hordon – Former FAA Air Traffic Controller at the Boston Air Route Traffic Control Center, located in Nashua, NH, 1970 - 1981. Former Certified Commercial Pilot. Former Certified Flight Instructor and Certified Ground Instructor. )
pilotsfor911truth.org
patriotsquestion911.com
ae911truth.org
Complain about this comment
In the same BBC documentary in which Jones and Gage appear, Richard Clarke is prominently displayed debunking alternative conspiracy theories, alternative to the official conspiracy theory, by means of claiming it is a fundamental rule of government that secrets can't be kept. The author of the new book by Washington Post reporter Bart Gellman on Cheney, Angler, responds to Scott Horton, lawyer and Harper's magazine contributor regarding secrecy:
"It turned out to be surprisingly easy to keep secrets. Some of the things they did were codeword-classified, and on questions like domestic surveillance Addington had de facto control of who had the requisite “need to know.” There were times when Gonzales, at Addington’s behest, simply ordered John Yoo not to tell his own superiors what he was doing. After a couple of years, other legal arms of government started pushing back, but as Will Taft at the State Department told me, it was a long time before they even knew there was a fight to be fought."
The tight group that kept these secrets included Cheney, Addington, Libby, John Yoo, among others. Tightly controlled information, and orders given without explanation can accomplish alot in such a powerful, and tightly disciplined group. Cheney's behavior in the PEOC bunker under the White House as described by Sec of Transportation Norman Mineta is a good example of Cheney's command and control. A young military man came into the bunker and announced "the aircraft is 50 miles out... 40 miles out... 30 miles out... Do the orders still stand?" Cheney whips his head around and says, "Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard any differently?" What was the order? Shoot-down? It is not plausible the young man would question a shoot down order after seeing two aircraft fly into buildings, and a third is bearing down on the Capitol. It is more plausible the order was a stand down order the young man questioned. The plane continued its flight, and something hit the Pentagon some ten minutes later.
Secrets are not anathema to cells within the highest offices of governments. Some are more effective than others. Clarke meant well, but his claim secrets can't be kept is not credible. It is certainly not conclusive evidence a cell within the Bush admin was not responsible or complicit in what happened that day. He is relied upon as a credible witness, but his opinion by itself is not credible.
The BBC's debunking in this case was not conclusive.
Complain about this comment
Hi Dav,
You wrote
"143. At 8:33pm on 17 Sep 2008, daveim wrote:
It is incredible to think of the money and effort spent to disprove the conspiracy angle. Unfortunately those that prescribe to conspiracy's generally don't accept reason and logic making it that much more of a futile effort. There was a recent blog on www.seniorsmoment.com explaining the same thing.
Dav"
I would gladly accept anything rational and reasonable from the US to support their story. This should be easy to do, they shouldn't have to spend much, but they have failed to do even the basic tests:
a) fire forensics: after even a house fire, firemen in the US test for accelerants and explosives. Not done for 9/11.
b) terrorist forensics: after terrorist attacks, police look for secondary devices. None done for 9/11.
c) After any air crash, there should be formal air crash investigations. The four crashes on US soil never investigated... were on 9/11.
d) criminal forensics. When you find bone fragments on top of skyscrapers 600 yards from the twin towers 5 years after 9/11, you should follow procedure including an investigation on how a falling building (officially due to fire) managed to mince, crush, and fling bones long distances. Gravity doesn't do that. No criminal investigation.
e) finally the Bush administration did the 9/11 commisson (nearly 2 years after 9/11) - the end result reads like a novel and it is hard endorsed by the main authors saying they were misled by the military (wrt to timings) and CIA wrt evidence extracted by torture. When Lee Hamilton of the 9/11 Commisson described the collapse of WTC7 - he said it was because of "superheated jet fuel". There's no such thing as superheated jet fuel and WTC7 was not hit by a jet!
It is not just a matter of disproving anything but PROVING their own story. Remind me again how they identified the hijackers? Look at the 9/11 timeline and you'll see it would be laughable except for the seriousness of the event.
So, all people are asking is abiding by the 9/11 families wishes and just follow standard procedures for investigation disaster events!?
So don't you think we need an investigation where basic science and in NIST's case, basic maths, is actually performed? (NIST after 5 years, hadn't even measured the acceleration of the collapse!)
Since wars, elections and economic instability can all be put at the door of 9/11, don't you think it needs a little bit more serious investigation?
Complain about this comment
Well BBC this will be my third attempt to be noticed over the last three days, you might give me a inferiority complex soon. Anyway here goes agian. Mike, nice to know that you are working on a final program. Now who are you going to interview, are you preparaing a nice moderated debate between say; Jones and Gage V. Sunder and yoursel. Could be good.
How about including an interview with David Leifer of the sydney Uni Architecture Department. He can give you the figures that prove that additional energy must have been used to pulverize the concrete in the towers and No 7. You see BBC I saw David drop a block or two of concrete from sufficient height to reach maximun velocity due to the affects of gravity. Guess what, the concrete fractured and there was a 'minute' amount of "dust" , more like sand, created. You see BBC when you do the maths, freefalling concrete cannot turn to the clouds of dust seen, without that extra energy. Not to mention, the finding of small human bone fragments on neighbouring buildings, molten metal etc One would expect that if the floors just collapsed that human remains would be pressed between the floors like a flower petal in a bible.
Oh well, duck over to 911blogger.com for 16th September and have a look at the submission sent to Mr Cauffman of NIST by; Gourley, Szamboti, Gage, MacQueen, Jones, Ryuan, Sarns, Obeid,Grainger, Legge (Aussie, lovely fellow!) Fischer, Keogh, Chandler, Roberts.
For those who wonder why time is spent on this, (about $A200,000 worth in loss to me over 4 years due to the distraction from my profesional activities) they underestimate the concern many have for the loss of our fredoms in the knowledge of the many false falg attacks in history, not to mention, concern that there has been an unsolved mass murder, meaning that the perpetrators are at large, armed, dangerous and likely to offend again. Not to mention the attempted conquests and killiings that resulted from concocted and planned fear being imposed on the populace. The internet has put those of us who care, together, why not join us BBC?
Complain about this comment
good post, malleestump.
Let me also propose the BBC fund a study using some of the dust samples Jones, et al, have, using advanced techniques, and blind comparisons to thermite/thermate compounds, including nano-thermite compounds. Good, hard, honest, independent science. How about it? The results submitted for peer review to a reputable journal?
Mr. Rudin? Will you step up to this?
Complain about this comment
Was there or wasn't there "a conspiracy"?
The problem with those who like a rational explanation for everything (the scientists - for or against conspiracy) is that life is often a web of events that collide or coincide at a common point leading one side to conclude to their satisfaction and the other to conclude to theirs. Both sides are guilty of ignoring the context of the other.
Let us assume, for argument's sake, that the US government had considered creating a reason to attack Iraq (not too far fetched from what we know already) and did have intelligence suggesting an attack on NY. There was probably a plan on the table to thwart the attack but not before producing sufficient evidence that Al Quaeda or an "evil" other was implicated. The plan depended on the actions of those charged with coordinating "discovery" (a very small number required) and of "external" events running according to the "plan". Like any good "heist" things do not run according to the plan and go horribly wrong. In order to protect the "plan" there are "distractions" in place, again coordinated by a "few".
By creating the distraction the "plan" is protected and we spend thousands of column inches debating something that has "no" satisfactory conclusion whilst all the time the real "story" goes undetected. To me the credibility of what happened on 9/11 is completely smeared by all these official reports. Only one report is needed - What happened on 9/11 - the complete and unadulterated truth. The chances of getting such a report are zilch.
Complain about this comment
#131 frasay
You say:
"Let's see if I've got this straight, you're spending time on this blog, criticising me for spending time on this blog? Sounds a bit hypocritical to me Barcelona_nil."
I'm certainly not criticising you for spending time on this blog, I'm questioning whether a respected academic worth his salt would do so.
I make no claims to be such, you do. I'm always immediately suspicious of people who feel the need to make claims about their own personal situation on an anonymous blog, that's all. I remain quietly confident that a professional academic you are not.
You say:
"I'm just standing up for what I know to be right."
That's a very revealing turn of phrase.
You're standing up for what you BELIEVE to be right, as we all are, and there's a gigantic difference.
Complain about this comment
#133 Hank_Reardon
You said:
You said:
"I watched the german film about 9/11 last week, It devoted about ten minutes of the film to how floor 34, i think it was, was shut down for weeks before hand, had been stripped bare and was was being worked on all day. they carried interviews with workers from the floors above and below as well as the building manager, who confirmed that work was going on in that floor and that dust clouds would regularly come through the air vents and heavy banging at times would shake their offices."
You watched a film? Do you mind if I don't take that as being the most reliable form of evidence there is?
You know for certain that every personal experience presented in that film was a cast-iron fact, presumably? Every witness was beyond embellishment or doubt?
And that the film-makers themselves were simply presenting an objective analysis of the events?
"There are loads of witnesses, why do you keep saying there isn't, or have you just never checked?"
I'm sorry, but watching a film isn't "checking the facts". It may be exploring alternative possibilities, however creative and unreliable they may be, but it certainly isn't checking the facts.
Complain about this comment
Apparently over 20% of Germans (and higher proportions of other nations) believe 9/11 was a false flag operation and this is somehow proof it was. What proportion of them also believe in God(s), ghosts, creationism or other fairy tales.....
Complain about this comment
Barcelona_nil,
Fine, I'm not a respected academic. I am a crack head, porn star, and chronic bed wetter. Now can we lower these walls and talk as equals?
You say,"I'm always immediately suspicious of people who feel the need to make claims about their own personal situation on an anonymous blog, that's all."
Sounds like you've got trust issues. Relax, you can trust me. Let's be friends huh bud?You asked me for my credentials. Now you're suspicious of people displaying personal information?
I generally agree with your point about the difference between actual knowledge, and belief systems/structures, however in this case, I really do know that WTC7 was brought down by controlled demolition. As much as I can know anything.
I disagree with your comments to Hank above in #151. Watching a film can assist in learning the facts. Films like 911 Mysteries, Press For Truth etc, are soundly based on mainstream media reports, academic timelines set out by guys like Paul Thompson, and full of witness testimony from authoritative sources such as reporters and rescue workers. Have you checked these films out? It's always good to look at things from as many angles as you can.
Barcelona_nil, you're the one who thinks WTC7 came down due to fire. Because of this view, it's your judgement that is in question.
Even the BBC's Third Tower doco had more points to support the controlled demolition, than collapse due to fire, when you strip away the editorial bias.
Complain about this comment
re 93,
Peter, none of the "terrorists" names appeared on the passenger manifests. check out CNN to see for yourself.
Complain about this comment
Frasay,
"You asked me for my credentials."
Er, no I didn't.
"I generally agree with your point about the difference between actual knowledge, and belief systems/structures, however in this case, I really do know that WTC7 was brought down by controlled demolition. As much as I can know anything."
I'm not talking about belief systems and structures, my point is much more simple than that - the simple difference between belief and knowledge.
You say you know they were brought down by a controlled explosion - If that's knowledge you hold, and not simply a belief, then you must be in a position to provide irrefutable proof and the debate is over.
But that isn't the case. You can provide lots of anecdotal evidence to support your case (all provided by other people, on TV, on the internet etc), but so can those who argue against you, which is why this debate is continuing.
What makes this issue less interesting than it might be is people, such as yourself, who have the arrognance to believe that they are in possession of all the facts that matter, and that they "know" the truth.
"It's always good to look at things from as many angles as you can."
Indeed so. Maybe you shoulld give it a try, rather than dismissing the evidence and testimony you don't like.
"Barcelona_nil, you're the one who thinks WTC7 came down due to fire. Because of this view, it's your judgement that is in question."
Two things.
Firstly, I do not think they came down due to fire any more than I think they were blown up or pulled down, I don't know how or why they came down.
Secondly, how can you possibly decree which views necessarily draw someone's judgement into question and which don't? Again, this show's a breathtaking inability on your part to even acknowledge that there might be a valid position other than your own.
If you can't see, understand, and appreciate, both sides of an issue you're not in a position to make such a ludicrously self-important claim.
"Even the BBC's Third Tower doco had more points to support the controlled demolition, than collapse due to fire, when you strip away the editorial bias."
If you strip away editorial bias from another position of bias (i.e. your own), any "findings" you may come out of it with are esssentially meaningless.
Complain about this comment
154. And if they had appeared on the manifests it would be dismissed as being too neat to be true. Equally the evidence against Bin Ladin is weak so therefore he didn't do it, but if his laptop with full plans is found in afghanistan it'll be a plant. The conspiracy theory can bend to fit all facts.
Complain about this comment
peter, so how did 19 "terrorists" sneak onto four planes without giving their real names?
Complain about this comment
Humblebeginnings, I came to think of 9/11 as an inside job after five years of assuming the general narrative was correct: Al Qeada terrorists flew planes into buildings, the buildings collapsed with great loss of life, war with Afghanistan was justified to root out the terrorists though morally repugnant after Afghanistan's previous twenty years of war.
It was when the rationality of a scientifically critical look at the towers collapse presented, for me, the contradictions in the official explanations that I looked beyond the official context and started investigating the events independently.
I still believe Al Qeada figures large in the events, whether as patsies or complicit with larger forces, I don't know. The published results by NIST, the 911 Commission, echoed by the popular press supporting the official conspiracy theory (yes, there was a conspiracy... two or more conspired in these events) including the BBC, The History Channel, NOVA, Popular Mechanics are rife with contradictions both with each other and internally. In science, such contradictions spell doom for a given theory.
NIST and the 911 Commission have stated that jet fuel fireballs traversed elevator shafts killing people in the lobby, destroying equipment in the 4th, 5th, and 6th sub basement of WTC 1. Pouring over the blueprints of the building, which were only available publicly within the past couple of years when they were leaked by someone interested in the truth getting out, it is as plain as one's nose on one's face that only one elevator shaft reached from the strike zone to the sub levels where this damage was to have taken place. The car in this one shaft was occupied by two people when the plane struck. Both were injured, and reported fire, water, concrete and debris when the car fell 15 or 16 floors but they survived. They were helped out of the car, and waited 40 minutes nearby until evacuated. They did not report a tremendous fireball of jet fuel destroying equipment, knocking over walls in the sub basement where they were. A fifty ton hydralic press was completely destroyed according to chief engineer Mike Pecoraro. Arturo Griffith and carpenter Marlene Cruz were the two people in Car 50. They are alive today.
Deaths in the West Street Lobby near elevators that only travelled to the 30th floor could not have carried a jet fuel fireball as they extended to nowhere near the strike zone, or open to other shafts that did. 118 eyewitnesses giving 178 accounts of explosions, some synchronous, going off throughout the building is much easier to believe than jet fuel fireballs that simply had no course to follow to specific areas where extreme damage was witnessed and reported.
NIST and the 911 Commission presented the hypothesis that fireballs were responsible for the damage documented, but offered no supporting evidence backing up the hypothesis. In this case rational thought, in context to the layout of the building, trumps an unsupported assumption that was within their ability to substantiate but didn't.
I agree the chances of getting an unbiased, accurate report are nil. But it is a worthy cause for the sake of victim's families, and for the catastrophic effects the events have had on the world at large.
Complain about this comment
"Firstly, I do not think they came down due to fire any more than I think they were blown up or pulled down, I don't know how or why they came down."
If a normal building disaster investigation had been conducted both on site and off site, and the results then had been published in a transparent way so as to be verifiable by the scientific community, it could have been conclusively determined why they came "down".
That was not done, so computer models have been produced. Computer models, of course, are no substitute for knowing what column and beam was broken and precisely how, and so on. I think this goes without saying.
In 2006 the NIST lead WTC investigator (Shyam Sunder) said they had not been able to "get a handle on building 7". Then they came up with a detailed explanation of what went wrong. I'm sorry, but I find that completely implausible.
Summa summarum: there has been no real investigation, and the way WTC 7 was destroyed correponds to a particularly skilled controlled demolition. I don't believe there is any way in this universe that random office fires could accomplish what equals a controlled demolition -- otherwise we would be entering an era of fire demolition.
Complain about this comment
# 38
Those interested can get the facts for themselves:
Google:
MOSSAD + "Urban Moving Systems" + "Twin Towers" + "white van"
In fact, there were three identified MOSSAD teams. The "Urban Moving Systems" was arrested and eventually repatriated to Israel
and Israel apologized.
It was all in the New York area newspapers and is still available, including a video of the MOSSAD team dancing and doing "high-fives" as the building came down.
One lawyer spent several months tracing all three MOSSAD groups and supplied his information to all concerned.
This is easily available public information.
It is unfortunate, but typical, that an Israeli sympathizer would seek to denigrate such facts.
If any decent and honest Americans are interested but have trouble finding the facts, speak up.
Complain about this comment
What makes me beleive that there is more to the story of 9/11 than we are led to beleive.
Is the fact that the media completely ignore the families, The experts and the politicians that are questioning the official version of events.
There are hundreds of unanswered questions about 9/11 and reporters don't ask them.
It is left to the general public to form groups and go after the people who need to be questioned.
Are we living in china now? where if you ask a serious question about 9/11, you are ridiculed and called a tinfoil hat wearer or quite simply ignored.
The BBC's conspiracy files programme set out to fully support the official version of events on 9/11 and did not give a fair and balanced view at all.
Hardly surprising though when not one part of our media has the courage to do some real research.
Complain about this comment
barcelona nil,
your one of these really disingenuous commentors. you turn up long into a debate that has raged on these blogs for years now. You refuse to actually have a standpoint and instead just aim broadsides at anyone who questions the official theory, that you yourself refuse to endorse, You will attack anyone who questions it, but not actually defend it yourself.
You will take arguments way out of context demand proof of things only to then disregard the evidence offered.
you will say in one post that you believe it was not CD in another post you say you believe neither.
I guess you really don't have a view on any of this, at leasst not a consistant one.
German tv Documentaries amazingly have no relevance, but BBC ones do. When witnesses commit their story to video it automatically becomes worthless in your eyes. Two witnesses have dies in the last month which means i am afraid we are going to have to rely on the evidence they commited to tape as they can no longer elaborate.
Guys like Barry Jennings who were witnesses you call conspiricy theorists. Get it in your head, he was a witness not a theorist. he just told what he saw and heard, thats all. he didn't offer a theory. Just his own honest account of what happened.
You will disappear in a few days never to post again, normally when you have been proven wrong on almost every assertion you offer, which is probably why you wont offer any or just deny the official story when the evidence mounts up.
At least guys like peter-sym and jon112uk hang around and are willing enough to tackle the debate, even if they do think Ted Turners wife was a victim, they stick around.
Guys like you i have seen come and go over the years, a day or two of pointless posts then you give up when you realise that without evidence on your side your story is just as wild as any other.
If you have anything constructive to say then please say it but after reading your few posts it seems you just want to quote peoples words back at them and say they are wrong whilst providing no good reason why you believe them to be wrong.
Complain about this comment
Barcelona_nil,
Do you have an opinion or are you just here to waste everyone's time. You say you don't think it was fire, or demo's that brought down WTC7. What was it, martians?
Sorry, I thought you asked for my qualifications, but no that was someone else. And, I'm sorry you have a problem with my term belief structure as opposed to belief. In my world, these terms mean the same thing.
Anyway, si, I am arrogant enough to say WTC7 is a controlled demolition,and that is a fact.
I have looked at all the angles, and made this diagnosis because,
A)Barry Jennings was in the building when it was blowing him around, and this was before the Twin towers fell. He's in a position to know what was going on,
B)There is video evidence of charges and flashes going off,
C)There is forensic evidence in the form of molten steel recovered from WTC7, and moly spheres formed in high temperatures,
D)Reporters and fire fighters say they heard a series of explosions,
E)The speed of collapse shows that it's a controlled demolition...can't you see that?,
F)The mainstream media didn't show us footage of WTC7 falling, for over 5 years, because it was pretty dubious,
G)and the media reported it, before it had actually happened, also suggesting foreknowledge of demolitions.
Proof, beyond reasonable doubt, from eye witness testimony, expert witness testimony, unaltered video evidence, forensic fingerprints of explosives, and susequent coverup.
You can see the underneath supports are all taken out at the same time. There is zero resistance. Like Rudin says, there is "no mystery" to this. It was brought down, and covered up folks.
Maybe we should water board Sunder and see if he really investigated WTC7 properly. That's be humane, right?
Complain about this comment
157. "peter, so how did 19 "terrorists" sneak onto four planes without giving their real names?"
Because pre-9/11 US airport security for internal flights was pathetic. You didn't need to even show a passport and you could pay cash for the tickets. Your airport secuirty guards were min.wage min.education.
Complain about this comment
"At least guys like peter-sym and jon112uk hang around and are willing enough to tackle the debate, even if they do think Ted Turners wife was a victim, they stick around"
No. I repeated the Ted Turner thing which I picked up from another blog on this subject without checking it first. 2 secs googling disproved it. The advantage of me being a scientist is that mind is predisposed to changing its opinion as new facts present themselves. I don't follow dogma.
Complain about this comment
absolutely frasay. a giant building collapses in perfect symmetry at freefall speeds, yet some people refuse to see anything premeditated about that!! it beats me, it really does...
81 steel support columns, spread over god knows how many square feet, give way at exactly the same moment — yet there isn't supposed to be anything dodgy about it!!
Complain about this comment
Hi frasay,
You wrote in 163
"A)Barry Jennings was in the building when it was blowing him around, and this was before the Twin towers fell. He's in a position to know what was going on"
You may be interested in hearing that 911blogger and other websites are reporting that Barry Jennings is dead. He died a few days before the WTC7 report was released and the news of his death has only been confirmed by his work colleagues. No cause for death has been given.
(This needs to put into context with the mysterious deaths related to the Anthrax attacks and the CD Madam, Deborah Palfry).
Clearly there are coincidences and coincidences. But strangely the media doesn't seem to do any investigation...
Complain about this comment
Of course there is no mystery to the collapse of WTC7. It was a controlled demolition.
Complain about this comment
"Barcelona_nil,
Do you have an opinion or are you just here to waste everyone's time. You say you don't think it was fire, or demo's that brought down WTC7. What was it, martians?"
Do you understand the concept of being unsure? of not having jumped to a conclusion? I don't think it was a fire any more than it was a controlled demolition. That doesn't mean I think it was neither.
Discussions like this pale when so much of them is spent explaining basic semantics.
"And, I'm sorry you have a problem with my term belief structure as opposed to belief. In my world, these terms mean the same thing."
Well, they don't mean the same thing, so I'm glad to have been of help on that score.
"Anyway, si, I am arrogant enough to say WTC7 is a controlled demolition,and that is a fact."
And there my interest in this discussion ends, because it's not a discussion when people are this blinkered.
Complain about this comment
So Peter, had i not pulled you up on the whole 'Ted Turner' you would nevr have checked.
Thats what you are essentially saying.
Surely you would check any facts you pick up from blogs before endorsing them. As you are a scientist i would have thought you would be clinical in your checking of facts.
I wonder how many other facts that you have picked up on blogs and then hold to be true without checking them.
Peter, you lost a lot of credibility in my eyes with the whole Ted Turner thing and even more when you admit you were just blindly repeating something you saw on the internet.
Which is normally the kind of behaviour you accuse folks like of doing.
Complain about this comment
#158/159
It has always struck me as surprising that "eye witness" accounts are not given reasonable credence in matters like this often because those involved were described as too shocked or too traumatised to be reliable. Their testimonies would no doubt be invaluable in a Court, but first we need a "crime".
I was home on 9/11 and watched and listened to radio and TV as the story developed. It was apparent to me that there were several "facts" broadcast just once that did not get further explanation or retraction. One, just minutes before the attack on the Pentagon, suggested the sighting of an "unidentified fighter jet" or "missile" flying over Washington.
I also remember that within minutes of the word "terrorism" being introduced into debate, the name "Al Quaeda" had been aired as the likely suspect. I have wondered about the surviving "passport remnants" when we know what did not survive identification.
I did not automatically think "conspiracy" or "who did it" because there was too much going on, I just could not believe that New York could be so "wide open" to what was the massacre of sitting ducks.
I am also suspicious of computer programs such as those described. As a professional programmer I know how easy it is for these to be "biased" to produce the desired effect.
It disturbs me that there are correspondents on these threads for whom the conspiracy theorists are just a bunch of nut cases, especially when the "discovery" of Watergate took incredibly protracted work.
I too would like to know the truth but I do not believe that it will come via "investigations" that concentrate too readily on the "more controversial" elements of 9/11. The truth is in what we have all seen and heard several times over but for which we have yet to receive truthful explanation.
Complain about this comment
NIST has been phaffing around and delaying for 7 years before publishing their WTC7 report (and then give a three week commenting period on their report...)
Just in case people think there really is "no mystery", go to http://www.911blogger.com/node/17794
...where there is a scientific and perfectly straight forward rebuttal of the NIST's WTC7 report. Understandable to absolutley anybody with high school maths and science, this conclusive shows that NIST's theory holds no water what so ever. New phenomena? And that's no mystery in itself?! P-l-e-a-s-e!
Don't be complacent. This is important. Just do the research for 10 minutes and it is obvious: the official story stinks. And there has been and continues to be a huge cover-up. We are not living in the benign society we were brought up to believe in.
Complain about this comment
Finn, Red, Hank, Humblebeginnings, and my steadfast friend Ynda,
Just wanted to reply and say Hi, and thanks for sticking up for what you feel is ethically humanely important. It is important to me too.
In some ways I don't blame the media for their silence, because, if the general public don't care after they've been informed, then maybe it isn't the media's job to keep pushing. But it still seems a bit wrong to me, to condone a war built on lies.
If you guys are in London, I'd like to buy you a beer sometime.
I used to look at artists and wonder why more of them weren't spreading the word about 9-11, but thankfully these days, most of my artist friends have become converts to alternate theories on 9-11, and are doing what they can to spread the message.
It's just lucky that WTC7 is such an obvious anomaly of that day, and that the media covered it up, because without WTC7, it would have been a tougher debate.
I like the unity here, and it's actually been pretty good of the BBC to keep blogs like this alive.
Have a good weekend guys and girls.
Complain about this comment
Barcelona_nil,
Thanks for your response. I can definitely relate to anyone taking to time to make up their mind, or not make up their mind, on any issue. It's totally cool to be sure or unsure. It's your right to do whatever you want, and I respect that, to the max.
I'm sorry if I've been badgering you to decide one way or the other.
For me, seeing the collapse of WTC7 was a pretty conclusive event. But different people have different perception of events.
I am just fighting for what I believe to be right, and if you feel strongly about something, I hope you will do the same.
Thanks for your responses, and have a good weekend.
Complain about this comment
Ola frasay, you 'don't blame the media for their silence, because, if the general public don't care after they've been informed'..? Now, that's a form of a logical contradiction, is it not? We can hardly have a silent media and informed public at the same time.
Needless to say, mainstream media utterly failed to present the subject in unbiased and investigative manner and one doesn’t need to go much further from these 'conspiratorial files' to verify such say. In my opinion Dr Shyam Sunder will have some hard time in the future, as he'll have to explain NIST's shameful participation in 9/11 cover up. Same goes for those who would accept and/or endorse such ridiculously meek excuse for 'scientific report' without any scrutiny.
Each year around the memorial we have these 'explosions of disbelief' which are then sanitized by the not-so-free media. Come to think of it, few years back, also around memorial, Lou Dobbs came out of the cover and CNN broadcasted some of the doubts in unexpectedly decent manner. It was a marvel to behold, the way that information was 'pulled' from the Internet and dismantled into oblivion.
Certainly, there are many, many perspectives surrounding these ever burning issues, and in one such perspective we are actually given a tool, an emergency number which will set us free. I've always found some Divine comedy in such; let's call it 'numero-logical' recourse of the whole lucky number 7 in 'dial 911' thingy. Perhaps that's the reason why I don't believe that there will be any other conclusion of the whole mess but the one which will finally establish those long promised four freedoms (everywhere in the world) and get those 12 atavistic monkeys of our back.
In one such perspective, we've been given a great tool and we are standing on the verge of renaissance, and there's a little need to remind anyone that we haven’t had one in a while.
What we have behind us is a century of war and what we have in present are unsustainable strategies which seek to confront fascism with islamofascism or similar warmongering and fearmongering nonsensical crap of gRAND proportions. If we turn a blind eye on mass murder (for self gain) then we deserve no better but to be enslaved in the world without humanity.
At last (and imo, as ever), BBC's decisions surrounding coverage of 9/11 attacks are actually decisions about freedom. As Tom Curley once said: 'the shadow of the Sept. 11 terror attacks is eclipsing press freedom and other constitutional safeguards in the United States' and whether we want to admit it or not, that is a rock solid fact.
Best wishes to everyone.
Complain about this comment
164. Peter, so ALL the other passengers were ID'd except the 19 "hijackers"? Hmmm...
And while we're at it, where were the families and loved ones waiting anxiously at the various airports as the planes deviated from their flightpaths?
Complain about this comment
Hi frasay,
I'm happy to take you up on the beer. And thanks for the kind words.
I am also pleased that the BBC keep these comment sections open. I wonder what the BBC and Mike Rudin really think about them. Since we must be intensely irritating to them (with us making, Ministry of Truth jibes at them). I wish the BBC would come back and say yes, we are free and fair (but sometimes we have to tow the line for MI5 planted stories etc). (Rather than hit jobs like the "final mystery" documentary - as if any of the other anomalies have been cleared up).
But the BBC's inaction - the failure to investigate 9/11 - is threatening our way of life - and not in some little way. And frankly the evidence that the official story is false is so overwhelming that soon it will just be the US and UK that will be trying to defend the indefensible...
Complain about this comment
With regard to the media.
There comes a time when silence is betrayal.
Complain about this comment
178. the media isn't there to question the fundamental workings of the system — how it manufactures consent while aggressively creating new markets. the mainstream media are simply there to critique the management of the system, whether the current lot are up to the job or not. 9/11 iraq et al are brutal, honest, manifestations of the system in action — anglo-american capitalism doing what it needs to in order to say ahead of the pack. You can't really have a de-militarised capitalism, so foreign war is great for big players like halliburton, BAe systems and all the rest, while the expansion of the military-surveillance state at home creates a whole host of smaller enterprises concerned with stuff like facial recognition software. 9/11 and 7/7 were designed to facilitate this nakedly aggressive phase of capitalism, while entrenching neoliberal political orthodoxy. Incipient financial collapse, however, is kinda showing neoliberalism to be a spent force. It will be interesting to see how the next generation of managers (Obama and Milliband?) handles the challenge. One thing for sure is that the mainstream media will NEVER expose 9/11 and 7/7 for what they are, because of what these events represent — the ruthlessness of power and wealth.
Complain about this comment
Hi moriaeencomium, 175
You said "BBC's decisions surrounding coverage of 9/11 attacks are actually decisions about freedom. As Tom Curley once said: 'the shadow of the Sept. 11 terror attacks is eclipsing press freedom and other constitutional safeguards in the United States' and whether we want to admit it or not, that is a rock solid fact. "
Indeed that is the case. Espcially in the light of the "closed" two party politics in the USA and dreadful stories surrounding e-voting machines. How can you ever prove fair elections with no over-sight of the counting process? One person with the right access to a computer, can just overturn a whole state's voting preferences with just a key button presses and its virtually impossible to trace the change!
e-voting therefore equals no democracy!
Complain about this comment
apologies. I'm on a Mac and all my dashes come out as question marks. will have to stick to hyphens.
Complain about this comment
Redmichael,
Being on a mac is the least of your worries, especially if you think Obama(brezinski) and Milliband represent a change of leadership who will have to handle the challenge.
My understanding of the media is possibly a bit simpler than yours. in my mind their role is to honestly report the truth. Nothing more nothing less.
They should be a 4rth estate, informing the people about the world and keeping the govt. of the day in check.
There role is not as defender of neo-liberal doctorines or of championj of military backed capitalism. Their job is to inform us whats going on.
If our govt, or a cabal within and above it are responsible for 9/11 then i would expect them to report it, not assist in perpetuating myths about men in caves. They are a part of the state, but that does not mean the can't report that the whole thing is rotten to the core.
I am frightened by your viewpoint. From what i understand you believe 9/11 to have not been done Osama, in fact you imply that you believe it to have been the halliburton crowd and their buddies, but you then go on to almost congratulate the media for helping them. how weird is that. Your not arguing that it was an inside job your positivly condoning it.
The financial collapse is as much a terrorist action as 9/11, both planned and executed with purpose, and just as 9/11 was blamed on 'man in cave', the financial collapse already has its own catchphrase causes, 'credit crunch' and 'sub-prime'. Financial bogeymen just like osama.
This collapse is showing not that neo-liberalism is a spent force, but instead it shows how easy it is to steal trillions from us and place it in the hands of private banks.
The media tell us none of this, I have not seen one single report mentioning central banking as a factor in all of this, not one about the role of fractional reserve banking in all of this.
They used 9/11 as a cover to invade countries and take away the few rights we had, the financial collapse is being used to steal our money and centralise power. When it all ends we are going to find ourselves at the complete behest of those in power.
The medias silence is a betrayal to not only us, but to our children who will still be paying back this debt long after we have passed.
Complain about this comment
Hank, I am certainly not condoning what the media have done!! The key is your statement: "they are part of the state, but that doesn't mean they cant report on how it is rotten to the core", or somesuch. That's PRECISELY why the media cannot report how rotten the state is. Do turkeys vote for Xmas?
Osama, if he's still alive, is a mere bit player. The real villains, as you say, are the military-industrial cabal that installed a dried-out oilman who couldn't run a bath — but who had the right name — as the frontman for PNAC.
Complain about this comment
We agree on a lot but not everything.
Its the mass media that is rotten not the individual journalists. (apart from mike and his crew) The end of mass media does not mean the end of journalism or the need for it. So they can report on the state without voting for christmas.
The george bush is an idiot is one that has bothered me for a while. GWB is not the fool he wants us to think he is. It is probably the biggest misconception we have at the moment. The more you read about his life the more you realise what a shrewd guy he his. All his businesses went bust, but he made millions out of them.
He was the idiot son who wanted to be Govenor, and pulled it off. Then we mocked that this idiot could not win the nomination, and he won.He practically admits to being a coke-head alcoholic who dodged national service and we forgive him. Then he not only wins the nomination, but steals the presidency, not once but twice and he gets away with it, but still folks tell me that he is the idiot.
Well he is the man who couldn't run a bath, but still manages to fool/rule the world. We are the idiots for misunderestimating him and for falling for his dumb george act.
When we eventually realise whats going on, he is going to be sitting in the confines of his patagonian compound laughing his ass of at us.
Complain about this comment
Yeah hank, it's not individual journalists, as you say - I am one myself - but self-censorship does take place every day. It's a profession with rules like any other. There are stones that are OK to turn over and ones that are definitely off limits. If journalism posed a real challenge to the state it would conduct a thorough investigation of events such as 7/7, which I have followed closely since the day itself. But an awareness that there is something very wrong with the official account of that event cannot, in itself, over-ride our "programming", if I can use that term. Good writers who stay within certain defined boundaries of inquiry will go far, but the ones who lift stones they are not supposed to will be ignored, passed over, sacked, whatever. Ridicule, as well, comes into it, so, in terms of what we write, we swallow rubbish like the NIST report on Building 7, even though a minute spent thinking about that collapse - 81 steel supports, the centre falling first just like a textbook demolition - should be enough to convince any sentient being that this was no accident.
Complain about this comment
I'm trying to understand the official story...
The WTC Towers were built to withstand hurricanes and air crashes. The towers appeared to absorb the aircraft crashes ok. But it was the fire that brought them down, right? The temperature of the fires must have been hotter than 500degrees C to even weaken the steel. That is means the steel would be cherry red! Can you really believe the fires were that hot in ONE hour? And just suppose they did get that hot (and that is a B-i-g if) then the towers would warp and slowly collapse. The second tower (the first tower to be hit) would be expected to fall in a different pattern surely, as any natural phenomena is random. But neither things happened - each building EXPLODED and collapsed in the same way within a few minutes of each other. And this has been seen before in any fire... and this doesn't seem to be a big issue for any official story believers...
Well assuming the twin towers were the same design and it was a faulty design and you explain it away (like the BBC did in a documentary "how the towers fell" using a mechanism which not even NIST subscribes to anymore)... then explain WTC7. Different design, different damage. Surely that would behave as you'd expect from a fire? Apparently not! Despite the expectations that it was going to come down, (as reported by the BBC) apparently it fell down from an entirely new natural phenomena, created by fire that gave an appearance exactly like controlled demolition but NIST says was the internal structure collapsing randomly but leaving the exterior untouched then the exterior falling in onto empty space.
And this is not mysterious?
Please official story believers, please confirm that I have got your story right?
Complain about this comment
For Hank Reardon:
Apologies for going back to comment #76, and for a long-winded answer, but I can help you understand at least one aspect of this - specifically the BBC/Reuters/CNN conspiracy about "knowing" when Tower 7 would collapse.
In #76, you wrote that on one BBC blog, Richard Porter said: "Nobody told us what to say or do on September 11th. We didn't get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down. We didn't receive press releases or scripts in advance of events happening."
And that on another, Mike Rudin said: "It turns out that the respected news agency Reuters picked up an incorrect report and passed it on."
And from this you conclude: "They can't both have been right can they?"
Speaking as someone who works in a newsroom (with no connection to this story), I can say categorically YES they CAN both be right.
No ifs, no buts and, I'm afraid, no conspiracies.
I don't mean to patronise, but here's a quick "How Journalism Works" primer:
Newsrooms rely on many sources of information that they trust. The BBC will subscribe to news agencies including Reuters, the Associated Press, Agence France Press, etc etc etc. They all feed dozens and dozens of stories in each day. Taking info from these and passing it one unchecked would not be classed as "being told what to do".
I can see how there would be confusion for a layman, but Richard would have presumed we'd understand that *of course* the news would have worked the same way on 9/11 as any other day (ie agency reports would be used) - and he would have been saying that no-one *else* was unusually telling the BBC what to do or say (ie governments, etc).
The same explanation would also apply to CNN - who could have reported 7WTC's demise from the erroneous Reuters report.
If you still want a consipracy, your question should be: "Who told Reuters that 7WTC had collapsed?" That I cannot answer, but if I were a gambling man, I'd say it was the result of reporting hearsay as fact on a mind-blowing news day. Similar mistakes are made on a daily basis, but are in obscure stories that no-one cares about and so are immediately forgotten.
I hope that helps. I'm sure I won't have debunked this to your satisfaction, but if you have further questions on this issue (I'm no molten metal expert!) then I'm happy to explain.
Complain about this comment
It is interesting to read what some persons are saying, who maybe journalists, great to have you on board. ! trust that you are all keeping notes of the details of the censorship being imposed upon you.
It is generally becoming accepted in my professional circles in Sydney, that 9/11 must have been an inside job. Last Thursday the Fox History channel broadcast "Zero". Whilst most do not subscribe to the 'Murdocrachy', the word is getting out, despite history channel's program that followed with an attempted debunking of 'Zero". 'Zero' won hands down.
Now let us move up a bit! I suggest that fellow 'conspiracists' google; 'Closed session of Congress 13th March 2008' and read the reports on what might really have happened. I will add that I am informed that the illegal wire tapping from about 2000 resulted in the discovery of a large dissident minority in the Us which, if swelled by the new homeless and sacked workers could be a threat to Government. Thus the 'Gulags'. Could be a rocky road in the near future for our cousins. Seems that Mad Muslims are the least of Bush's worries. Hence the various controlling acts to support possible martial law.
As mentioned above, the bankers will end up with the lot!!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Hush now hush, but the conduct is in question and it is safe to say that BBC is a part of conspiracy. If we put the premature reports aside, as nuisance, we can easily question the basic strategy, one which is actually old, as old as strategy of tension is and as often implemented as the reported reoccurrences of Roswell are. It is the failure of these particular strategies which actually put us ahead of schedule with regards to the unfolding history and aftermath of 911 attacks.
The fact of the matter is, the libel, the label (etiquette if you wish) itself had kept the official myth from collapsing. In Rumsfeldian manner hard boiled, well embedded individuals established the ''Conspiracy movement'', much as BBC tried to do so, thus categorizing and labeling dissenting citizens. Such course enabled easy dismissal of the people which asked most disturbing questions. Interested observers could see this on Wikipedia, where mentioned sort of tactics was endorsed and successfully carried until recently. Conspiracy theorists as vile as communists (or any other historical sample example) and derogatory terms spewed in Monbiot's manner were indeed sufficient to keep dissenters at bay. Needless to say, BBC was in line with this sort of strategy (it might even be a part of the 'think tank' which envisioned it), which means that authority behind the service really is a part of the conspiracy, and, needless to say, I'm talking about the only part of the events that can be designated as such, or in other words, I'm talking about the fact that individuals in the US and UK governments conspired to kill their own citizens. Needless to say, the idea of unipolar world in the multicultural and universally diverse universe is… I'll stay polite.
Deliberately or not, the seekers of the truth (twoofers) and other established terms (groups) were/are also rather unfortunate, as they serve to turn the citizens into historically unrecognisable categories of individuals. Of course, as the numbers of the people which question the official line grew, these terms and such well placed categorisation failed to suffice. After all, very few people here identify themselves with mentioned (or not mentioned) groups and it would be safe to say that a good part of us actually stands as citizens in manner we used to stand in those ancient forums.
For those who can recognize these 'things related or not', it may be obvious that the discussion has reached maturity, and the fact that we didn’t have a Monbiot here in a while might even be encouraging.
In the end, and far simpler, all of these shows 'Mike produced' can be called sloppy journalism, or this and that, but in the end they are what they are, and what they are?
Well, they are BBC's attempt to cover things up.
Complain about this comment
Hi onthehushhush,
I think most people agree that the BBC were misled by the false reporting of WTC7 by an invalid news feed taking speculation as fact. The trouble is Richard Porter "investigated" this last year: couldn't find the tapes, culdn't find any notes, the news reporters minds were blank. Nobody came forward to explain those aspects and the extraordinary coincidence of the satellite feed breaking up just a minute or so before the tower collapsed. Wind on one year: Mike Rudin says he will be doing a fair and honest review of the "final mystery" of 9/11 (as if any of the other mysteries have been cleared up!), the third tower.
Ah-ha. WTC7 finally mentioned, shown and acknowledged on UK TV. Unfortunately, just trial by TV: the news feed was from reuters, we found the tape it had been mis-placed in 2002 archive (so at we know it had been accessed since 2001!), the satellite break was "just a coincidence" - people had forgot the terms of satellite contract, and Jane Stanley et al still had blank memories.
So... why was this not mentioned earlier? Why was something like a quarter of Mike's documentary the BBC putting their side of the story. Another half to White House staff and Controlled Demolition Inc CEO who claim the conspiracy was fantasy?
Where was the discussion of the science? (Er only done by Gage and Jones and not rebuked).
Why only a partial interview with Barry Jennings who claims that there were explosions in WTC7 before the towers collapsed?
And... get this: Barry Jennings has mysteriously died days before the publication of the NIST's final report!!!!
Ignore the science, edit and select the interviews then coincidence, coincidence, coincidence. And this is all somehow, not a mystery?
Complain about this comment
onthehushhush
Thanks for your atempt to explain the 'facts' to me but i am not entirely satified. Well done for having worked in a newsroom, so have I. I have also worked with large tape libraries.
Ynda has pointed out most of the problems with you 'theory'.
Now we are told there are no mysteries here because the tape was found on the shelf marked 2002, this would be fine, as ynda points out this means it was initially put on the wrong shelf, a shelf at that time that didn't exist. BBC output traditionally has more than one copy made, normally there is an offsite store for the tapes too. Like the one i used to work in, so yes i know that tapes do go missing, but i also know that we don't pre-label shelfs a year in advance and that tapes of the importance of 9/11 would be treated with more care then others.
I was one of the many who spent many months hasseling Richard to give us an answer, which was, you must agree, completely different to the one Mike gave.
Something is rotten in the BBC.
And I don't want a conspiricy, there is one, has been one and it continues. WTC7 is a tiny part of a grander plan.
But thanks all the same
Complain about this comment
187. onthehushhush
Personally, I didnt get too hung up on the jane standley misreporting of wtc7, though asking where reuters got their steer from might be illuminating. For me, there are so many big unanswered questions about 9/11 that one hack's blooper is fairly small beer. Having said that, I do think there is a determination on the part of the media to "officialise" the final version of events - let's have a nice smooth narrative with islamofascist bad guys that lurk in every rogue state. If we're going to have a never-ending War on Terror then our enemies should be invisible, out there and, above all, foreign.
Complain about this comment
Following up the latest comments (187 through 193) I haven't been looking for a conspiracy either but, as Hank neatly puts it, we are entitled to the truth and it appears that the last thing on the media's minds (especially Mike Rudin) is the discovery of that truth.
For the first time I have read some of the scientific responses to the NIST draft and I am now convinced that there is something very rotten here, so how can this Blog be entitled "No mystery"?
And of our big media corporations? Okay so individual journalists have standards that they must adhere to and that is fair enough, but does that go as far as toeing the party line when lies are being told? It is clear from what I have read that NIST is not telling the truth or, at the very least, not using science to back their version of events at WTC7. So why is Mr Rudin so convinced that "the matter is now closed"?
And just who is convinced that the many freedom curtailing measures in the west are justified because they will make us more secure? If 9/11 was a "plan that went horribly wrong" either in execution or detection then the only way we are going to be safer is for political deception to be exposed. And who is going to expose that deception if it isn't our media guys? And who pays the BBC's wages?
If you have started something Mr Rudin then please finish it properly and not drop it like a hot cake because of what?
Complain about this comment
There is no point asking mike whats going on.
He is a shill, a liar, a man who has beeen complicit in the cover up. He is at the coalface of the lies. he is not a man who has any interest or regard for finding out the truth. he is employed to help spread the lies that are the official story. he is a propogandist. He will no doubt tell us one day that he was only following orders.
Don't think there is any chance that he will ever do any honest reporting, its just not in his remit or job description
Complain about this comment
what can I say hank. as a journalist you do your best - you write what you think is the truth - at least initially. But stories get spiked and you get fobbed off with excuses or you get sent to cover something safe or your stories get changed - so you have to fight. You have to fight for your stories. And some people are better at fighting than others. And maybe there are job cuts. Maybe you don't win that prize when you think you should. Or maybe you've got a mortgage and kids to feed and a car to fill and a position, however lowly, that you quite want to cling to.
So you accept the compromises, and you write what is expected of you. What lies?There are just different truths.
Complain about this comment
redmichael2,
I might say to you, what freedom? There are just different forms of slavery…
Recall this one>
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-mitchell/a-guide-to-nyt-bombshell_b_97624.html
It is not like that because it supposes to be like that, it's like that because we (or to be more punctual, some of us) allow it.
As per your point, a simple no will do.
As any journalist should know, there are no lies and no different truths, because we're (unlike mike) dealing with facts.
Must say, I understand your point, but sadly, one has to add, it's a week point, and it is such from so many perspectives…
Best wishes… as ever.
Complain about this comment
Hi redmichael2
You wrote:
"196. At 10:44pm on 20 Sep 2008, redmichael2 wrote:
what can I say hank. as a journalist you do your best - you write what you think is the truth - at least initially. But stories get spiked and you get fobbed off with excuses or you get sent to cover something safe or your stories get changed - so you have to fight. You have to fight for your stories. And some people are better at fighting than others. And maybe there are job cuts. Maybe you don't win that prize when you think you should. Or maybe you've got a mortgage and kids to feed and a car to fill and a position, however lowly, that you quite want to cling to.
So you accept the compromises, and you write what is expected of you. What lies?There are just different truths."
I must say this is one of the most depressing things I have ever read. "Different truths" - sure there are different ways of looking at things. But FACTS can never be different. Establish the facts. For 9/11, there are different stories especially who was behind it. Yes, lots of speculation there, or should we just believe the first thing that Bush utters?
But the FACTS:
a) Previously unknown phenomena: fires with dust clouds, buildings collapsing in seconds!
b) people's personal experiences
c) Measureable effects: molten steel at the bases of WTC 1, 2 and 3, body parts minced and thrown hundreds of yards, the composition of the dust.
These facts have hardly been discussed. The molten steel at the bases of the towers is actually disputed by NIST, mainly, I feel, because this information has not been discussed in the main stream media. This gives them wriggle room. There should be no dispute about the facts But there is! timings of the plane crashes, for instance: a whole three minute difference for the shanksville crash: 10.03 (official story) or 10.06 (independent and verifiable evidence)
So if there is conflicting evidence how is that resolved? By investigations and critical journalism of those investigations! Where is the air crash investigations? (None). Forensic examination? (None). Paper trial of the finances (None). We do have the CIA extracted evidence (from torture!!!) - so that should stand up in a court of law! (not).
All of this could be raised as questions. Robert Fisk has done this. Why can't other journalists do this!? Just ask the questions!!!
If you have fear about paying the mortgage then maybe you're in the wrong job. If your only motivation is "prizes" then er... I think your definitely in the wrong job. Doing the job should be its own reward: which as far as journalism is concerned is establishing the facts, asking the big questions and then (just maybe) expressing an opinion.
Democracy depends on a free press. I think 9/11 proves that in the US at least: with rigged debates, two party control of the mass media, e-Voting fraud, democracy is a sham.
A few big questions on that please.
Complain about this comment
the real mystery to solve is not that the beeb could muck itself so abjectly in matters concerning WTC 7 reporting [again], but is how any sentient human can muster the balls to offer 'office furniture fires' thermal expansion.com[tm] computer programme as a believable sequence capable of bringing a 47 storied steel framed building down in 6.5seconds-especially when there is complicity within its own NIST membership of a nano-thermate industry well versed in knowing just exactly how it DID happen and dying to be asked and put on record.
Complain about this comment
Please take no offence redmichael, but your reasoning is pretty pathetic.
You will live in the lie quite happily because you want to cling onto what lowly job you have. I guess this is how the nazis got away with it 60 years ago when they started carting folks of to the camps.
We live in a time when it seems very few folks have any individual moral responsibility. I guess as long as you get your I-pod and your laptop these days you will let the state do as they please. So our Army rapes 13 year olds, don't worry heres a new new gadget. We carpet bomb innocents, don't worry about that, heres an extra 3 pence per word. Our govts commit murder on 9/11 and 7/7 and blame it on a man in a cave, don't worry, if you tow the line we might give you a promotion.
Please never call yourself a journalist again at least be honest with people and tell them you are a paid liar. Again, pleae take no offence.
Complain about this comment
well, I seemed to have stirred up a hornet's nest with my previous post. Good. There's nowt like a heated debate!
PNAC is a virulent form of capitalism. To understand 9/11 and Iraq you have to go back to PNAC. That is the neocon ideology which underpins never-ending war and false flag operations.
Preventing any further attacks means confronting this ideology. The only place that can happen is on the street, not in a newspaper or in a blog.
On the streets.
Complain about this comment
Hi Redmichael2,
You wrote "The only place that can happen is on the street, not in a newspaper or in a blog. On the streets."
It's a lot easier on everyone if in a newspaper. That's what they are supposed to do.
The truth movement, of course, is already on the streets. I suspect that the truth movement has already delayed attacks on Iran. The rest of the world are getting educated. It is only a matter of time before US and UK will have to face the truth too.
Complain about this comment
Maybe so ydna20. It's always possible that the US and UK catch up with the rest of the world. However, the legislative and law-enforcment muscle now exists in both countries to suppress any dissent, unless it is widespread. I suspect the gulags halliburton are currently constructing stateside will house a few "truthers" before too long. This all goes back to what I said a few posts ago about the military-surveillance industry getting a big boost cos of 9/11 and 7/7. The architecture of oppression - business-led, of course - is more entrenched in US and UK than in any other developed nation, apart from Israel.
But maybe you're right, and enough people wake up at the same time to make a difference.
I don't fancy living on Airstrip One.
Complain about this comment
Not wanting to investigate into possible demolition is the key issue here. To quieten the cries of a knowledgeable public about any horrific crime committed by their government, no other dialog would be dominant but to call it a conspiracy theory.
Furthering, the media will continue the bad naming of those as nutters, traitors or even the governments combated enemy who can see through the smoke and mirrors of a dominant and controlled media.
The thoughts portrayed that seems to escape the editors and readers consciousness is how society is cultivated by censored information not allowing the public to be able to correct their own life much less their government. Governments were delegated authority by their people in the beginning. Now they demand it and outright take it, telling the people what to think and what to do.
To shift to a conquering aggressive government in the disguise of a defensive government no other type of event could persuade a change to be accepted and come about so swiftly but a event like 911. The whole structure of the government has changed from a posture of being upright to a contortionist. A criminal regime has formed and passed laws that defy the very democracy and constitution the government was based. Preemptive strike, wire tapping, the imprisonment in a foreign country held without a trial, torture and a military orchestrated and equipped National Security Agency these action are not from a legitimate authority.
War time powers of the Pentagon are in effect, no congress, president or any elected office has any freedom, power and authority that can not be taken away.
Complain about this comment
Not wanting to investigate into possible demolition is the key issue here. To quieten the cries of a knowledgeable public about any horrific crime committed by their government, no other dialog would be dominant but to call it a conspiracy theory.
Furthering, the media will continue the bad naming of those as nutters, traitors or even the governments combated enemy who can see through the smoke and mirrors of a dominant and controlled media.
The thoughts portrayed that seems to escape the editors and readers consciousness is how society is cultivated by censored information not allowing the public to be able to correct their own life much less their government. Governments were delegated authority by their people in the beginning. Now they demand it and outright take it, telling the people what to think and what to do.
To shift to a conquering aggressive government in the disguise of a defensive government no other type of event could persuade a change to be accepted and come about so swiftly but a event like 911. The whole structure of the government has changed from a posture of being upright to a contortionist. A criminal regime has formed and passed laws that defy the very democracy and constitution the government was based. Preemptive strike, wire tapping, the imprisonment in a foreign country held without a trial, torture and a military orchestrated and equipped National Security Agency these actions are not from a legitimate authority.
War time powers of the Pentagon are in effect, no congress, president or any elected office has any freedom, power and authority that can not be taken away.
Complain about this comment
#196
"Different truths"
Sure a commercially fed media circuit manufactures its own "truths" and then uses a few facts to apparently back them up - much as NIST appear to have done. But this isn't about perpetuating another conspiracy rant that may vent the head of steam that comes from those who are not easily lulled into the false sense of insecurity that politicians want.
What we have in the events of 9/11 are differing views of what actually happened and yet all of us apparently watched the same set of events. Whatever the explanations may be they can never be "truths" but merely the line of best fit with all that happened. To reach that line of best fit all involved must deal with all of the facts and not select in or out whatever they feel.
An investigation is not about making a program that simply backs one horse it is about putting together sufficient evidence/fact to allow viewers to make up their own minds about who the runners and riders are and who is most likely to have "won" fairly.
I am no scientist but even I can decipher the huge gaps in NIST's claims about WTC7, their complete lack of explaining eye witness testimony and their ignorance of facts that should not have been ignored.
The BBC is not a member of the commercially fed media circuit (although it often appears that it would wish it that way) and it should be unconstrained by political pressures. Until we have polemic back in politics there will not be "on the street" passion - can you get a fag paper between any of the major parties in the USA or the UK?
Do you believe there is "No mystery" to what happened at WTC7?
Complain about this comment
If you allow, I'll try to illustrate some of your points pongabit.
Here are few different truths on 9/11 Commission report.
"They've done a really good job of learning about our country and learning about what went wrong prior to 11 September, and making very sound, solid, recommendations about how to move forward. I assured them that where government needs to act, we will.
"There is still a threat. We in the government have an obligation to do everything in our power to safeguard the American people."
US President George W Bush
***
"The report being released today by this so-called independent commission cannot possibly be deemed definitive or authoritative as an account for the events of 11 September - not by any stretch of the imagination."
Kansas Senator Pat Roberts (Republican)
***
The publication of the 9/11 Commission Report provides the public with the most comprehensive account of what happened on that day, but its findings fail to stem the flow of conspiracy theories.
Written statement at the Conspiracy files timeline
****
And here is a single fact which effects and affects (and does all sort of things to) those 'truths'.
Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, the chair and vice chair of the 9/11 Commission, stated that they were lied to by the NORAD and Defence Department's officials, that the Commission was denied of the evidence and 'set up to fail'.
*****
So you see, we may have different truths (opinions), but we cannot have different facts. Fact is true by the definition, and it doesn’t need to be called truth.
Complain about this comment
Hi guys,
When I said earlier that I didn't "in some ways" blame the media for their silence, the point I was trying to make was that public apathy was also a major problem. But I still blame the media for their cowardice, and for abusing their responsibilities.
There have been occasional articles on 9-11, that could have stirred up the public but failed to do so.
But the apathy of 5 years ago isn't such an issue any more. If anything, blaming apathy is a cynical and lame excuse for not taking action. Because 100's of millions are now aware of the problems with the official version of 9-11 (according to the polls, 100's of millions in America alone think there's a coverup, millions more worldwide).
I agree with Ynda, it's a lot easier for the press to print the truth, than to wait for revolution on the streets. Saying it has to happen on the streets is a copout. These days, the internet pretty much is the streets anyway...it is happening on the streets.
As these Editors blogs show, and everyone in the mainstream media knows, the public is not apathetic when it comes to 9-11. We want the truth, and we are disappointed that our media have lied to us, and covered up.
As Hank says, people are being raped because of the media's betrayal.
Millions are being killed, imprisoned, and destroyed, because editors haven't had the guts to take some risks and print the truth.
9-11 is the key reason why people have turned away from the press, and looked to the internet to find the answers. The media's failure to do their duty, ethically and honestly, is why so many papers have cut staff over the last 3-4 years.
If media rely on advertisers, then we can all write to these advertisers, when our media fails us, and explain our concerns with who they're advertising on, and threaten boycotts if we don't start seeing some changes.
With the BBC, it's a fact that the M.O.D. can step in and censor stories, or control what's said. (That's according the a BBC programme about terrorism that was on a few years ago). Maybe the BBC's hands are tied, in ways that other media aren't. But if that's the case, BBC, don't pretend you're reputable.
In times of immense corruption and violence, times like now, some people stand up for what they believe in, and fight oppression, and voice their concerns for those who don't have a voice, and other people huddle quietly, shushing and cowering, praying it will all end soon, and that they won't lose their jobs, or fancy lifestyles.
Do your best Mike. I'm not sure we've seen that yet.
Complain about this comment
I am just waiting for Mike Rudin to explain the new NIST story: "WTC7 was an entirely unknown and new natural phenomena to bring down a skyscraper by an ordinary office fire. This was completely without precedent and hasn't been seen before or since and so couldn't have be predicted. Um... except for the BBC, but hey, they, er... "we" were fed a false information from Reuters. Fox and CNN also had the same um... false news story that someone was expecting the building to fall from this entirely new and unique phenomena. It must have been those firemen who predicted this unpredictability or that guy heard counting down 3-2-1 to the explosion. Not that it was an explosion because that would be "conspiracy talk". No-no. It was entirely natural for building to topple at free fall speed as all the metal suddenly completely loses all of its strength by that really, really hot office fire that had burnt out several hours before... Um... Who writes this stuff?!"
It would be funny if it wasn't so serious!
Complain about this comment
Frasay 208.
Ditto.
Howver I would add the politicians such as those who I have been wriitng to for over 4 years. (including to Mr Rudd our present PM) I approached the Newly appointed Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition in Australia, when he was electioneering outside Edgecliff Railway Station in Oct-Nov 2004 and asked him to explain Building No 7, he had not heard of it. In October 2007 when he was electioneering outside Edgecliff railway station I asked him if he had examined the matter of building No 7 over the previous three years. He had not. (despite all the information forwarded over the three years) Now he is Leader of the Opposition and wants to be Prime Minister. It is amazing the number of politicians who either believe in Fairy Tales or who just do not want to know. So people what now? Just keep writing to the blighters so that one day they be seen as the fools that many of them are. If you do not use your democrcay, you lose it, so get practising. Micheal Meacher MP (uk) has an article on his website of September 2003, that is a good start.
BBC, Mike and your bosses, sorry but you lot are becoming redundent, we can inform our selves thankyou.
Complain about this comment
Mike,
How soon is "soon" for the Third Tower documentary? Who have you interviewed? Any more from Barry Jennings? (Oh right, I forgot - he completely non-mysteriously died. Just like Kelly, Cook, Todd, Deborah Palfrey, the guy the FBI is stitching the Anthrax attacks etc. Have you tried getting an Actuary on the number of strange deaths recently?).
Well, we are interested. (On this blog at least!)
Complain about this comment
If only Mulder and Scullly were real, this'd be cleared up in no time.
Complain about this comment
Mike stated a while ago that
"Are some conspiracy theories just too controversial to discuss publicly? We've spent the past few months investigating whether there is any truth to the many theories that have grown up about the London bombings of 7 July 2005. The results of our investigation will be shown as part of the Conspiracy Files series on BBC Two in the Autumn."
Now it seems that this documentary has been shelved, not for broadcast, not to be shown.
I am guessing that they just could not tell a convincing story on this one, so they decided not to make it in the end.
I don't think this one is to controversial to discuss publically, its just to hard to debunk the evidence that screams 'inside job'.
So the best idea is to forget about it and hope that we do too.
We won't.
Any comments Mike, or have I got the wrong e-mail address.
Complain about this comment
I'm not really too sure what you mean Messy-H are you thinking aliens did it?
Or "a new phenomena" as NIST would have it?
Far easier to explain with Controlled Demolition. At least CD fits with all the observations including personal accounts, pre-knowledge, sudden onset, freefall, dust clouds, molten steel in basement. The NIST explanation doesn't even fit with their own computer models that they've been fiddling with for 7 years. Hmm...
So who are the Conspiracy Theorists, exactly?
Complain about this comment
So now the US moves another step into martial law on the 1st of Ocober. Things are getting way out of control over there.
And again the only place this is reported is on the alternative media.
It looks like there gearing up for another false flag attack.
and most folks are still living the lie that is al-qadea.
By the time they realise building 7 was nothing to do with fires, half of the US population will be in modern gulags.
Hope we arre all right over here
Complain about this comment
BBC should have a single line on that al Qaeda ****, it looks silly if you dismantle the myth in investigative manner; while you still fuel it in most irresponsible ways.
It's not like it's not in the mainstream already, times, csm, and other sources stated their concern about creating the phantom menace long ago.
Complain about this comment
BBC save the world. Expose the Al Qaeda myth on 9/11 - that would so damage Bush's reputation that the "economic 9/11" we are currently suffering will be put into the correct perspective.
We could be on the brink of something really nasty. If the US election is "suspended" then we can welcome in 1984 Two-point-zero.
Complain about this comment
I don't think 9/11 was a conspiracy as such, but it does seem probable to me that the 'hawks' in the administration would have been quite happy to let a terrorist attack happen so that they had their own 'Pearl Harbour', (hence providing an excuse for a war in Iraq) but I doubt they expected to be as huge as it actually turned out to be.
Complain about this comment
Hi canukqc,
"218. At 5:11pm on 25 Sep 2008, canukqc wrote:
I don't think 9/11 was a conspiracy as such, but it does seem probable to me that the 'hawks' in the administration would have been quite happy to let a terrorist attack happen so that they had their own 'Pearl Harbour', (hence providing an excuse for a war in Iraq) "
So you do believe there was a conspiracy even if of silence. This is an impeachable offence. And if they wanted to invade Iraq, why did they invade Afghanistan first?
So you are entirely happy with the building collapses, their lack of investigation, no air crash investigations, the Bush Administration's instant blame onto saudi terrorists, CIA torture and all the other strangeness surrounding the event?
Complain about this comment
It has been quite a pleasurable experience reading the quality discussion towards the end of this thread.
I only wish as many people at the BBC as possible read it.
And watch the documentary "Zero: An Investigation into 9/11". That would provide a good example of investigative journalism.
Keep up the good work, guys!
Complain about this comment
Well, the scumbags behind 9/11 are now orchestrating the collapse of the US economy. I'm hearing a lot of rumours that something big is going to happen early October which will probably destroy the US financially (leading to martial law) as well as having worldwide ramifications. World War III is also on the cards as the New World Order want to bring humanity to its knees begging for a solution to end the madness which they will offer in the form of a one world government, world army, world currency etc.
People, it's time to wake up and realise that the world is not what it seems. Events that seem to be random or unforeseen have actually been carefully planned to guide humanity in a certain direction. 'Order out of chaos' they call it and it's about to be used for devastating effect.
Find out about the New World Order now while you can.
Complain about this comment
'Naah', if you would state, carefully planed mass murder of more than million people in just five years, you'd be more on the point.
Or some other well guided guess.
Complain about this comment
An interesting debate on the Subject of 9/11 on British 'Press t.v.'
Sceptics ( of the official conspiracy theory)
vs
Sceptics ( of the alternative conspiracy theories)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTrLnHZOaek
7 parts, about 45mins in total.
A lot more honest and no thrills than the BBC immature, shadowy, X-files approach. A real debate.
I would like to see somthing like this but with more of an emphisis on edivence with both sides preparing their 'facts' in the form of video clips, publications and witnesses ect, with both sides able to cross reference the edivence. Then see who wins.
This is the most important wrold event in all of our lifetimes and an issue the media needs to address so somthing like this can never happen again, wether the perpertraitors were Al Qaeda of others.
The fact of the matter is we still dont know- if the Conspiracy theories were so easy to disprove why havnt they been? The medias approach is to shoot them messanger instead of dealing with the message.
Complain about this comment
Hi nwomoefoe,
"221. At 11:09pm on 25 Sep 2008, nwomoefoe wrote:
Well, the scumbags behind 9/11 are now orchestrating the collapse of the US economy. I'm hearing a lot of rumours that something big is going to happen early October which will probably destroy the US financially (leading to martial law) as well as having worldwide ramifications. "
As much as I don't want to believe it. I do fear that this possibility is a risk. It may not be highly probable but the risk impact is so severe that it does need to talked about. Only if it is discussed and recognized as a possibility can we hope to avoid it.
I believe that the media attention on some of the lies around Iran have stopped the US already from starting the WWIII already. Remember the coincidence of the B52 fully loaded with atomic weapons - and was about to fly to the middle east - two years ago?
That was stopped by US Air Force officers leaking the information to the newspapers. This is the power of the media. Not just the alternative news, but the Main stream Media. It can stop such plots from the likes of the war mungering Bush Administration.
So BBC, be dismissive of 9/11 conspiracy theories or the New World Order conspiracy theories, if you like. But if you just TALK about them! It could stop major, major disasters perpetrated by the few onto the rest of us. How else do you explain 9/11 (buildings exploding by er... fire! Where's the science in that?), the Iran mis-info (lies!), the B52 "accidently" loaded with A-bombs (nothing about A-bomb movement can happen without dozens of top people involved), even the current economic crisis (who knew what and when?!). They don't just happen by mistake. And you can't believe the Bush Administration that have been shown to have lied over Iraq, presided over Enron and current economic disasters, covered up 9/11 and stolen 2 elections!
There's not much time...
We'll know soon enough.
Complain about this comment
Why does Afghanistan now account
for well over 90 percent of the world's opium, after the Taleban nearly
eradicated its production in 2000-2001?
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
(see the table on page 10)
"Despite more than 30,000 international troops in the country,
Afghanistan now produces 92 per cent of the world's opium, a United
Nations report said Tuesday."
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/06/26/drug-report.html
Many believe that the invasion of Afghanistan had a lot to do with the (restoration of the) opium trade.
The use of depleted uranium has contaminated large areas in
Afghanistan in particular and is causing physical abnormalities in newborns on an unprecedented scale. Add to this the large number of civilian casualties from the war operations, and one can say that a genocide is taking place in both Iraq and Afghanistan. But the media disgracefully ignore all of these issues.
Complain about this comment
A sad day for me personally. A Brit myself and a paying T.V licensee for many years. Stephen Fry is quoted as saying, "The BBC enriches the country in ways we will only discover when it has gone and it is too late to build it back up again. We actually can afford the BBC, because we can't afford not to. I genuinely cannot see that the nation would benefit from a diminution of any part of the BBC's great whole. It should be as closely scrutinized as possible of course, value for money, due humility and all that, but to reduce its economies of scale, its artistic social and national reach for misbegotten reasons of ideology or thrift would be a tragedy."
A belief I used to share. However after viewing this cynical, directionless and hollow piece of propaganda masquerading as a documentary, I am forced to conclude that the BBC has fallen further than I had imagined. Perhaps it was inevitable in time that the last scraps of integrity and journalistic control in television were handed over to the people who make the news, rather than report it. Perhaps I have been fooling myself for a long time now on this issue, but no longer.
It seems now that it is time to stop watching "the idiot box" as my grandmother used to call it, and make even more of an effort to sift through the truth and lies on the web in the hope of reaching something approaching the truth by my own hand. A truth I can at least ascribe some sanity to within the realm of reason and common sense.
In my opinion, television news through the BBC and all other news companies has become fully entertainment based, with little to no basis in fact. It is no longer even presenting a token image of impartiality, rather, it is simply regurgitating official views in line with what the masses expect, even demand.
People today want stories, movies, a beginning and an end with lots of brightly coloured lights and action sequences in the middle so they can cheer the heroes and boo and hiss at the villains, and then sit back and enjoy the inevitable happy ending. Entertainment news for a generation that is not supposed to know what is happening and most certainly is not supposed to care. It could not be easier than in the present climate to guide peoples beliefs and emotions towards a common conclusion whilst only ever giving them the illusion of choice. This is not acceptable to me, and it never will be.
Complain about this comment
I have just registered here to voice my anger after reading Mr Rudin's disgracefully biased propaganda and to add my voice to the protesters. I had not even heard of building 7 until three years ago due to the corporate media blackout. When I did discover it, however, it opened a floodgate of unsettling information which completely altered my understanding of that day, and indeed of the world in general. I have never paid the BBC poll tax and never will, unless you stop putting out hit pieces like these and begin to report fairly with no bias.
Complain about this comment
WTC 7 is becoming of increasingly less importance. people can argue about what was done and who might of done it.
but there is a much bigger elephant in the room.
On the 27th of september Nancy Pelosi apparently announced to the congress that they were under martial law. I am guessing this was enacted to prevent the 'bail out' bill from being discussed in an open and public forum.
again for years now us tin foil hat folks have said that there would be an economic crash then martial law in the US. Lo and behold look what has happened.
I have two big concerns about this.
Number 1 - Most folks still live under the illusion that 9/11 was done by a man in a cave, regardeless of the evidence, so how on earth do you wake people up to whats going on now.
Number 2 - Us 'tin-foil-hat' wearers have also been saying that the next stage is a massive terrorist attack, within the next few weeks. Followed by all out martial law and the citizens of the US entering 'fema camps'.
Yet the 'journalists' at the bbc still feel no compulsion to report anything near the actuall events that are taking place over the water.
Do they think they will be immune to the fallout of whatever is going to come. I think they have been sold a bigger lie than the one they are tasked to sell us.
Complain about this comment
Sorry, nancy pelosi has not 'apparently' declared martial law.
She has declared 'congressional martial law'.
This means that you get a vote, you just don't get to see or debate on the bill you are voting on.
Complain about this comment
Hi Hank,
I agree with your analysis. As I said in 224, as much as I don't want to believe it. I do fear that the bigger problem: another mass terrorist attack, could occur. It may not be highly probable but the risk impact is so severe that it does need to talked about. Only if it is discussed and recognized as a possibility can we hope to avoid it.
So BBC, be dismissive of 9/11 conspiracy theories or the New World Order conspiracy theories, if you like. But if you just TALK about them! It could stop major, major disasters perpetrated by the few onto the rest of us.
If we talk about this risk, then immediately the threat will at the least change!
Just suppose this financial bill is not passed?
Just suppose a bomb takes out the 2 presidential candidates?
Just suppose the internet is cut off to stop "alternative" news stories?
Just suppose the blame is pointed at Iran and we need to take first-strike action?
Who are we going to believe?
Complain about this comment
ynda,
I think we are the only 2 who care.
which is a real shame.
I have seen both the 14th and the 7th mentioned for the next false flag, So if they do start moderating t'internet i would like to say it was fun fighting with you in truth corner.
Between us and others we seem to have seen off the debunkers here, the jon112's and peter-syms of this world. I notice they have given up arguing with us, I think peter gave up when he realised that Ted Turners wife was not a victim. (I think he saw that he could no longer be taken seriously). And if i never have to hear anything else from marcus_aurillious, whatever he calls himself i will be a happy man.
Sadly it looks like our efforts were in vain, people don't want to know, I am guessing they will start thinking about things when its all a little too late.
At least we can say we tried
Complain about this comment
Hank and ynda,
I think there is a conspiracy of our stupidity, or blindness. It was known that we lived a financial bubble, but who wanted to hear that?
9/11 is the wrong subject, because the argument can go on and on. Not the same about vote rigging in US, which is not covered on BBC. Vote holds the key of power.
I found two important characteristics of a successful society:
Technically: voluntary cooperation with equals to provide public goods;
Spiritually: love and compassion.
Complain about this comment
Hi Hank,
Yes, it has been good chatting with you. On the Conspiracy III thread, I spent along time arguing with Roly and Darkmattur and it was quite illuminating. Roly believes in the "generally accepted theory" rather the official story, so I asked where was "generally accepted theory" described? and er.... that was that. No more conversation. I had gone through detailed scientific papers and the debunker web sites pointing huge gaping holes in both. But still he clung to the Authority voice of orthodoxy despite the overwhelming evidence against the official story. (Well just look at Mike Rudin - he is doing the same!).
While Darkmattur pointed me to Lee Hamilton's mythical superheated jet fuel argument for building collapses (including WTC7 which wasn't hit by a jet) and I concluded that anyone who would believe "superheated jet fuel" shouldn't be leading a 9/11 investigation.
I'm crossing my fingers that I am wrong about my worst case scenarios. I mentioned these to people at work today and they was considerable doubt. People don't know what to believe.
I know that 9/11 will eventually be exposed as a fraud. I'm just worried about getting through the next few months...
PS.
I'm just seeing the results of the vote on the bail out plan. First round: vote of no. Huge plunge on stock exchange.
Complain about this comment
Hi doru001,
Way before I ever found out about WTC7 and 9/11 truth, I had been writing about eVoting machines and how stupid it is to rely on computer to do the counting if you can't view the software in the computer!!!
Check out...
http://www.velvetrevolution.us/#092608
...where there is a discussion with GOP Cyber security expert Stephen Spoonamore. Spoonamore says that the GOP wanted e-voting to steal elections but now foreign governments will be hacking and the winner will be determined by the best hackers. He says that if the GOP wins the hacking competition, McCain will win 51.2 percent with three electoral votes over Obama, and it will be a stolen election.
Very precise prediction.... Which I hope is wrong.
Meanwhile, predictions of the "economic 9/11" continue to come true as panic gripes the stock markets.
Complain about this comment
BBC Ten O'clock news "No-one predicted the bail out would not get through"
Er... both Hank and myself had predicted it.
Let's hope our other predictions don't come true. Refer to message 230 and others.
Complain about this comment
I'm afraid ynda20 the predictions are coming true. Everything is coming together. Rejected bailout. Military patrolling US cities from 1st October. Reports of activity at Fema prison camps. Yet the majority of the population are unaware and apathetic. Obsessed with vacuous celebrities, meaningless sports games and pointless reality TV shows. I told numerous people last year that the world was heading for financial armageddon and they thought I was crazy and even now, when all hell is breaking loose, they still try to remain blissfully ignorant and unconcerned. It's like they are spiritually comatose.
Well... they are about to get a big wake up call!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
nwomoefoe: If these problems exist then the BBC and the rest of our corporate media would have reported them. But, as Mr Rudin says, there is no mystery.
None of this has been reported so it cannot be true. And if anyone calls phone-in shows spouting this nonsense they shall be cut off and/or laughed at. Everything is fine. So just sit down, shut up, and be good boys and girls.
Complain about this comment
It is not all doom and gloom. Shares in Cambell's Soup Company and other tinned food manufacturers are up.
Complain about this comment
ynda20:
so it seems that the US govt will be sold to the highest bidder, like in the last decades of the Roman Empire.
the technical solution is voluntary cooperation with equals, to defend common interests. too few people follow it. we face a spiritual crisis. this crisis is exacerbated by the technological advance. we should create new social structures, to use the new technology for our own good. do you know such places on the Internet?
Complain about this comment
ynda20:
take care, even if you see the source code of a voting machine, this does not mean a thing. the assembly code could be messed up. the electronics could be messed up. a solution would be for any number of parties to count in parallel.
Complain about this comment
Hi Doru001,
you wrote:
"we should create new social structures, to use the new technology for our own good. do you know such places on the Internet?"
Sorry, I don't.
You also wrote:
"take care, even if you see the source code of a voting machine, this does not mean a thing. the assembly code could be messed up. the electronics could be messed up. a solution would be for any number of parties to count in parallel."
I agree. There was a IT security expert talking about eVoting machines recently being quizzed on the radio in the US recently and he was being asked by the interviewer "so how do you secure eVoting machines"? His reply "you can't!" and the response was "Seriously, what can be done?" and his response was "Seriously, you can't!". He concluded that the only way is for paper ballots, counted in public.
You can easily spot eVoting fraud by cross checking the results to exit polls (which if conducted by more than one set of pollsters are accurate to 2-3%). Just go back to the 2000 and 2004 elections and you can see huge differences. So you should then call for a manual re-count, except you can't!!! The push-screen e-Voting machines leave no paper audit! Even if you just had paper ballots which were then scanned you would have a cheaper, more effective and audit able mechanism. The current methods are just wide open to abuse and there's lots of evidence to show that these systems have been abused!
Just like global warming and WTC7, the Bush Administration just ignores experts and peddles its own version of the truth which is 180 degrees away from common sense. "When we talk about war we are really talking about peace" - this is just like Orwell's 1984 Double Think.
And people sort of Double-Think this all away - the power of posiive thining and ignoring doom sayers and "drains". Business people for one just don't want to hear bad news. In the future, if we do have a future, historians' jaws will be hitting the floor with just how stupid the general public have been over the past 8 years.
Complain about this comment
Hi Doru001,
(Minor corrections to my English) -sorry.
you wrote:
"we should create new social structures, to use the new technology for our own good. do you know such places on the Internet?"
Sorry, I don't.
You also wrote:
"take care, even if you see the source code of a voting machine, this does not mean a thing. the assembly code could be messed up. the electronics could be messed up. a solution would be for any number of parties to count in parallel."
I agree. There was a IT security expert talking about eVoting machines on the radio in the US recently. He was being asked by the interviewer "so how do you secure eVoting machines"? His reply "you can't!" and the interviewer response was "Seriously, what can be done?" and the expert retorted "Seriously, you can't!". The IT expert concluded that the only way is for paper ballots, counted in public.
You can easily spot eVoting fraud by cross checking the results to exit polls (which if conducted by more than one set of pollsters are accurate to 2-3%). Just go back to the 2000 and 2004 elections and you can see huge differences. So you should then call for a manual re-count, except you can't with the current machines!!! The push-screen e-Voting machines leave no paper audit! If you just had paper ballots which were then scanned you would have a cheaper, more effective and audit able mechanism. The current methods are just wide open to abuse and there's lots of evidence to show that these systems have been abused!
Just like global warming and WTC7, the Bush Administration just ignores experts and peddles its own version of the truth which is 180 degrees away from common sense. To quote Bush "When we talk about war we are really talking about peace" - this is just like Orwell's 1984 Double Think.
And people sort of Double-Think this all away - the power of positive thining and ignoring doomsayers and "drains". Business people, for one, just don't want to hear bad news. In the future (if we do have a future) historians' jaws will be hitting the floor when they look back with just how stupid the general public have been over the past 8 years.
Complain about this comment
ynda20
"Sorry, I don't."
Too bad.
I would go for paper ballot counted in public, too. They should do this in parallel with machine ballot, if necessary. Too bad the Democrats look happy with the current situation. That's why I said there should be new social structures. Can't post e-mail, but if you know of any discussion group on this more constructive issue, you may post it here. My idea is that we can do something in small numbers, even if 85% of the people are busy watching TV. New technologies allow us to be feasible in small numbers, while spread all over the planet. We can be a feasible community, even if we are a few percentages of the total. [Alvin Toffler - The Third Wave, see Wikipedia.] But I don't know how. Not yet.
Complain about this comment
So Mike Rudin, are you happy with the info this blog is giving you?
Are you happy knowing your propoganda can not fool the majority? And the majority are questioning your integrity?
Can we have a personal response from yourself regarding this matter?
Can we expect anymore of this drivel you call journalism?
Anychance of any "believers" of the "offical theories" coming on here with any substance behind their reasoning, or evidence that the NIST report is accurate?
Can we see some evidence of a plane crashing into the pentagon please?
Where are the 7 surviving hijackers you reported on?...why hasnt this been followed up or given high priority? as I believe its detrimental to the "offical" story released by the American government!!
Please Keep This Debate Going!!!!!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Hi zerozero,
I certainly try to keep debate going. I say the same thing virtually every time ("No mystery: building always fall down at freefall speed, right?") and nobody rebuts me. But who cares about 9/11 when we have "economic 9/11" going on?
It strikes me that since many conspiracy theorists had been predicting banking turmoil for some time then they should at least be given some credit for that...
Strange how everyone in government just throws their hands in the air saying "who could have predicted this?" etc etc. We know the rich make money when stocks go up and stocks go down. They just need to know when and what direction: we've all seen "Trading Places" after all. Someone has obviously manufactured this recent collapse, helped by Bush who basically said there will be a problem if this bill isn't passed! This is sort of self fulfilling prophecy, isn't it, especially when Bush's republican cronies stop the bill.
Bush's presidency is sort of a train wreck:
9/11 "we couldn't have predicted" despite lots of fore-knowledge. Iraq in response to 9/11 where there was no link. Katrina: who could have predicted global warming (er....), and now "economic 9/11" - who could have predicted? Perhaps those guys in Enron, maybe?
Complain about this comment
dont think they want us to continue the debate.
Nothing wrong about my post other that it was very cutting about our pals at the bbc
Complain about this comment
heres is a heavily edited version zero,
zerozero,
The jounalists you ask after are similar tools to osama bin laden. They get wheeled out once in a while, broadcast videos that dont seem right and then disappear back into the ether.
They are ghosts. You can't question them, you cant bring them to task. The BBC is like the tora-bora, a place where they can hide and no matter how much you try and get hold of them they can't be questioned about their involvement in all of this. Then suddenly they post something on the internet and leave folks to analyse and scrutinise what they say.
When the truth becomes a majority view, they are going to find it harder and harder to avoid these questions.
So what is their endgame here?
Maybe they have a place a bush's patagonian compound or an apartment in dubia with cheyney.
Brian haws has it right, God forgive them for they do not know what they are doing
Complain about this comment
Tonight, House will decide whether American people should bail out the "merchants of death", as we called the members of Military-Industrial Complex way back in 1934, when one of the Senators realised the goddamned size of that thing.
So what will the elected Americans choose? Quick and thrall detoxification, or slow, to use this present terminology, sweet poisoned death.
Bill written by the same treasonous murderous villains who committed a mass murder on 911 and 77, how many swindles it takes to make a swindle?
Current economy is based on murder and it is rejected.
We'll have to get that monkey off our back, and the sooner we do it, the faster we'll grow.
That said, I'd share another barrage of comments about the BBC's utter lack of responsibility, but I'll restrain.
Nothing but a subprime service is what we have here, if you think of common knowledge and common opinions, it does look a bit silly too.
Well, one way or the other, on long term or in a burst, those who invested in murder will pay.
Complain about this comment
They know exactly what they are doing. Right, Mr. Rudin? Luckily though, so do some of us passive consumers out here, sat in front of our flickering boxes.
Complain about this comment
Sticking to the subject matter.
Mike Rudin's documentary disses Dr Jones analysis of the the dust for iron spheres (which can only be produced by very high temperatures) with the idea that it may been contaminated with oxy-cutting tools used by the rescue workers.
In case anyone is doubt, the dust collected by Dr Jones was a) immediately after the collapse b) found in every sample. While any contamination by cutting tools would occur some time after the collapse and be highly localised. Therefore the argument that the dust had been contaminated is absolutely ridiculous and should not have even been mentioned in the programme except to prove how weak the official story really is.
You have on one hand a simple story that explains all the facts and evidence in a simple way (it was controlled demolition - after all terrorists are known for using secondary devices...) and on the other, a whole series of excuses which do not stand up to any form of scrutiny - oh it was contamination, simple office fires, a unique event, the mysteriously dying key witnesses (Barry Jennings), computer simulations that don't match observations, no forensics, no metal analysis, no tests for accelerants as is standard for any fire - and "coincidences" of the pre-knowledge, satellite breaks, media silence, not mentioned in 9/11 Commission report, sprinkler system put on test, sprinkler system failure, unique event, poor building design, just happened to be full of spooks and government depts...
And somehow this is no mystery?
Complain about this comment
Where were we? Things related or not, was it?
Well, as we all now, back in 1995, Murrah Building was brought down by the means of controlled demolition, killing innocent, even children.
In aftermath we had all the elements of 911 attacks.
Government reports were defined by manure as they've defied the physics.
Mainstream media took a sinful spin, spinning the facts into fiction and then, all mad as they come, trying to rewrite that fiction into facts, whilst administration had the entire legislation ready, it wasn't called Patriot Act, but it was all the bloody same if you ask me.
No need to mention other vicious acts of violence carried under the flag of state and by state sponsored terrorists, but it is clear that we have a persistent consistency when it comes to murder of innocent as we have persistent and consistent failures of public servants/services.
A shiny shilling for an ear? Is it?!
Eh, they say fundamental flaw, and it such on so many levels.
Complain about this comment
I recall somewher that BBC is doing an update on building No 7. Good, how about starting with the interview/discussion held by represetatives of "We are Change" and the BBC people at ground zero and as depicted in the "We are Change" video now linked at 911blogger.com (on 5th October at 2.27) How about admitting that you truncated Silverstein's comments for a start as well. (as denied by the crew in the video above)
Problem with all those murderers who murdered so many innocent people on '9/11' is that they do not want to be caught. They are not being caught because they are have not been properly investigated, they are not being properly investigated because of the assistance of those who either; unwittingly or deliberately cover up or misrepresent the facts about 911. The latter group are simply aiding and abetting the murders. The video referred to above, simply points out at least the lack if 'wit' (to be kind) that the BBC has.
BBC better upgrade your act in the next try, because your credibility on this matter is very very sus.
Whilst you at it, mention the put options and FAILURE TO INVESTIGATE, Mineta's testimony to the Congress (the video is available in full), the $100,000 sent to Atta from Pakistan, Proper details about the sources of Jone's samples of dust. more of the fireman who heard the blasts, the stand down of the dog squad, the power out the week before, Who handled the security at two of the airports and the WTC. DEAR OH dear so much, BBC, you have eons to go before you even start to expose the MURDERERS who MURDERED so many people. Oh well, put some local heist, or mugging, or footbal result in the news forefront, you never know BBC maybe the world will forget your sorry part in the 9/11 episode..........fat chance......NEVER! (that includes the spineless lying politicians of the world who are not doing their jobs)
Complain about this comment
Another day and another news story not taken up.
This time a CIA agent has stated that even though they 100 Afghan agents in country before 9/11 "they would not have been able to stop 9/11".
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jAspTsYA50EJNgfFynB9fCjYDcxQD93L89601
Now tell me truthers and apologists, is this really credible that with 100 agents, foreknowledge of the event (enough for someone to make a killing on the stockmarket), a huge unexplained rise in the M1 figure (money in circulation) in August 2001, FIS agents informing the US that there was a terrorist threat that the US could not have had a few military jets flying around on 9/11 (like they normally do) rather than having them engaged in multiple war games (actually simualting hijacked aircraft intercepts)!?
I think he is paleface talking with forked tongue.
Complain about this comment
Having researched this for over 3 years i have come to the conclusion that the coincidence theorists are literally not all there in the brain department. You put plain facts in front of them which they refuse to acknowledge. They have resorted to belittling comments and insults and quite honestly are either braindead or being payed vast amounts of money.
Building 7 is a hilrious case. They even had to come up with a never before encountered (made up) natural phenomenon (thermal expansion) to explain the collapse .
I recently saw the we are change video confronting mike rudin and to be honest the fear in his eyes at facing the truth was highly evident for all to see. The problem is, the people who have been researching and finding out about this subject for the last 7 years have massive amounts more knowledge on the subject than mike, and yet he gets to make a propaganda piece distorting the truth through omission of fact (the worst type of reporting imaginable)
I am sorry to say this mike. but you sold out. i hope it was worth it. in fact i'm sure it was.
Complain about this comment
I was actually out of the country at the time of broadcast and missed the Conspiracy files 3rd tower and have just recently watched it.
It actually wasnt that bad- I mean they were a lot of misrepresented facts as listed, but it was definitely an improvement on the last one- which didnt even try to disprove the alternative theories- it just simply said " Hi Im an expert, and that theory is simply not true."
In this one- the Nist people were basically saying the same thing, but the BBC seemed to give them less credibility, in fact they made the demolition guy look like an out right crook, until he tried to play the sympathy card about the abuse and hate mail he gets. The BBC did also get a lot of the important facts out there to the viewer, enough for them to tell somthing isnt right.
Anyways it was by no means imparticial, but in journalism there is no such thing, so this was an improvement- who knows, maybe the 3rd one will be better. They have a lot more explaining to do- Now that 'Thermal expansion' exists why are building all around the world not being rebuilt? and also how about Barry Jennings being dead?
My main problem with the whole program is the Spooky, immature, x-files branding, quite frankly I find it insulting.
You obviously think this issue is important enough to warrent a program to investigate it, please remember all the people who have died and continue to die because of this event- it is a lot more serious than this.
Mike Rudin is a great improvement on Guy Smith, and if I had to bet money on it, I think Mike is on our side and maybe trying to fight the system from within? I mean any eductated person can look at the facts and tell it is not right, and even though he is a journalist he still has his own personal opinions. Maybe it just hasnt really clicked yet as to how serious this is and what situation he is in, or maybe he really doesnt have any say in the final edit and is a bad researcher.
All the people in the BBC are gonna have make some serious decisions about this sooner or later, maybe Mike will do the right thing in part 3? But hey maybe im an optimist....
Complain about this comment
Catty mccat,
You tube the 'we are change' clip where they meet Mike Rudin at ground zero. It gives a great insight into how the facts clearly got in the way of the programme he had decided to make.
His inability to give a straight answer to the question asked reminds me of the paxman vs howard clip that the bbc love so much.
The look on Mikes face says it all, as he smirks he refuses to give a straight answer. It turns my stomach when you think about the number of deaths involved.
Complain about this comment
Hi Hank-
I just watched the youtube clip and it hits the nail on the head really with the criticisms it makes of the BBC's program, however the way the we are change people conduct themselves- give themselves more than enough rope to hang them- I mean the BBC filming that could quite eaisly make them look pretty bad and juvenile, although they did a pretty good job themselves.
Again I found that way that was cut with clips of Pinocchio-ironically the same as what the BBC do, trying to turn this serious issue into some kind of joke. We are change only seem to serve to forfil a sterotype to me, I mean I cringed and had to turn away when I saw Dylan Avery in the BBC documentary with his 'truther' hoodie speaking about the 'powers that be'- again given enough rope to hang himself.
The public perception of the 9/11 truth movement needs to shift and people see more of Richard Gage and Steven Jones to be taken seriously, not just kids, as both of us know the movement is a lot more diverse- which is what I did like about the latest BBC documentary.
I see your point about Mike Rudin, obviously he was in a hostile environment but he really did come across as someone not interested in getting to the truth- but the questions he was asked could have been better and from the outset not so confrontational.
Finally a quick question- when the conversation was about the Jennings timeline, this interview was filmed on 9/11 of this year? Was Jennings still alive at this point? Did the BBC and We are Change know he was dead?
Complain about this comment
Over at 911 blogger is a Canadian broadcast discusion between G. McQeen, M. Keefer v. 911 Debunkers. The program is "The Agenda". it was recent and , taken from wherever but has turned up at Blogger. Whilst the discussion does not cover everything, it would be usefull to the uninformed "Bush Believer Conspircay theory person" for some enlightenment.
The Poll at the end puts three questions:
1. The US made it happen.
2. The US let it happen
or
3. None of the above.
Guess what Mike? The first scored 72%, the second 10% and your lot; BBC and Mike, scored the balance. (work it out!)
Seems that you are becomming redundaaaaaant!
Complain about this comment
jennings was alive at that point i believe
Complain about this comment
catty,
If there is one organisation in this whole area that i trust i would say it was 'we are change'. I would agree that the environment was hostile but i would say it was so for both sides.
I hope you would agree that what the WAC folks do takes a lot more guts than what the BBC does. They are unpaid and generally mocked and vilified just for asking the questions. Mike is pulling a nice fat wage from the BBC and can use the gravitas and trust that the BBC brand brings to the masses. He also has the resources of his entire organisation behind him. The We are change folks have their own cameras, there own will and home computers.
Although i would agree the cross cutting is with pinnochio is not required at least we can see that it for what it is. Compare this to the subtle manipulation and editing that the bbc employed in their piece, where if you didn't know the full testimony of Barry Jennings you would think he had said that the explosions were towers 1 and 2 fallng.
As for the We are Change folks being confrontational, I would expect them to be nothing else. They are not professional media, they are very angry citizens with camera looking for answers. They are putting their freedom and liberty on the line for an issue they believe in. They are angry because this is not a job they are getting paid to do. It is their anger at the lies that have been told that has brought them to the street with their cameras. They are angry because they know they are right and are then faced with a man who has clearly manipulated one of the most important eye-witness testimonies of the day.
From where i am standing i thought they were very calm and controlled all things considered.
Complain about this comment
The exchange between WeAreChange and Mike Rudin on Youtube is not WeAreChange's best moments. What strikes me is this serious exchange of views has to happen in the street!
Perhaps we ought to go back to Barry Jennings to find out what he really meant! (Oh no, he's dead!) What about Hess?!
Mike did a reasonable job of standing up for himself but he was hardly fullsome with his answers. And who was that other guy answering for the BBC?! I wonder if there is anymore of this exchange to be seen?
Surely such serous allegations being thrown around need to be in a reasoned rational setting.
If you see the "Agenda" debate on TVO, it is clear that the apologists for the official story didn't know their facts and fell back on the "its oh too difficult to arrange" argument and completely ignores the non-sequitors in the official story: the biggest being how three skyscrapers decided to defy the laws of physics and blow up that day. The other big mystery is why hasn't anyone in the mainstream media been following up on the many anomalies and who knew what-when!
As Malleestump describes above the response to the TV programme was overwhelming against the official story.
Are we all too worried about "Economic 9/11" to worry about 9/11? Has anybody twigged that it may have been brought to you by the same production team?
Complain about this comment
I heard on radio4 today that the BBC will be doing a "who knew what, when" investigation into economic-9/11 on the radio. Well done. Let's hope it is better than less-than-scientific original-9/11 documentaries such as "How did the towers fall" - not explained. And the "The Third Tower - the final mystery" - as if any of the other mysteries have been cleared up! And also does not explain all the evidence.
Complain about this comment
Here's something very peculiar. On 26th November 2007 the BBC screened 'Live at Apollo' with comedian Jo Brand. During her routine she referred to the "so-called" terrorist attacks on 7/7.
On Saturday 11th October 2008 this programme was repeated. However, during Jo Brand's routine - remember, this programme was a REPEAT of last year's - she referred to the "awful" terrorist attacks of 7/7.
Why did the BBC see fit to censor Jo Brand's comments for the repeat showing of ''Live at the Apollo'? Who authorised the removal of the word "so-called" and the insertion of "awful"?
Complain about this comment
Good point RedMichael about the Jo Brand quote being altered.
There are people at work censoring the truth. I remember the night the news about BBC's Jane Standley prereporting the collapse of WTC7 hit you tube, and for the next 10 hours, the video was being taken down as quickly as it could be uploaded, until finally whoever was taking it down realised they couldn't win, and the word was out.
Mike Rudin and Richard Porter keep telling us there is no conspiracy, but some group somewhere has clearly been trying to remove key evidence from the public eye, just as the mainstream media refused to show us video of WTC7 collapsing for over 5 years.
I watched the wearechange confrontation with Mike Rudin on the internet, and I agree with the comments above. Wearechange could have been a bit more collected, but I think they still showed Mike Rudin up as a pompous smirking spin doctor, which, in my opinion, is all he is. Rudin's smugness comes across in his writing, titling this blog, No Mystery, when there is clearly a lot of mystery about a building throwing in the towel in 6 seconds.
He is clearly not fit to be in a position of influence.
I showed another friend the video of WTC7 collapsing last week. Kind of surprisingly, (or not, if you rely on mainstream media for your "news") she'd never heard about it, 7 years after the event. But now she knows that it was demolished, as any sound mind who watches it does. Let's all just keep on spreading the word. There are millions of us and there's still millions of people who still haven't heard a thing about WTC7. Send out some emails with video links, and lets get more people informed.
Complain about this comment
To admit that our Governments had a hand in (state) terrorist atrocities aimed at their own citizens would rock Western democracy to its very core. Given the serious jolt the system is already taking from the credit crunch I doubt if the mainstream media would ever countenance such a revelation, at least in the medium term. When all the protagonists are dead, there may emerge a comprehensive account of 9/11 (or 7/7) that will make someone's name. But not for a decade or two at least. At the moment, the truth represents too big a threat to the system.
Complain about this comment
I agree, redmichael. The merest hint of the truth of 9/11 getting out at the moment and Bush would devise another man-made panic of some sort: just think about the B52 caught with A-bombs, last year. We may be getting off lightly if we can just get rid of the neo-cons from the US government by the end of the year.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2396127.ece
The point I would like to make is that nothing about moving A-bombs can be done "accidently" - they are tagged and scanned, signed for, guarded, moved very carefully etc etc. It is illegal to fly bombs over mainland USA. While 70 air force officers were "disciplined", I don't think anyone lost their jobs. Strangely enough nobody has come forward to offer any real explanation.
Incidently, check out 911blogger for the latest professional slap-down of the NIST WTC7 report (even if it doesn't support any CD theory). This time from The Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH). They are scratching their heads over the collapse mechanism, lack of duration of the fire to induce the collapse and mysterified by the recommendations. No mystery there, then.
Complain about this comment
Redmichael2 #267,
I can see where you're coming from, but the problem is, people are currently being tortured, raped, and murdered in large numbers as part of our reaction to 9-11.
We're destroying countries, and killing millions of innocent people.
We're clearly in the wrong, bigtime.
I think because of this mass murder, it's important for the truth to come out, even if it rocks Western Democracy to it's core. Otherwise we end up turning our backs on genocide.
Also, to ignore the truth, could result in more serious attacks against the west, as the bogus war on terror endeavors to create new terrorist groups.
I agree, the mainstream reporters are too cowardly/unethical to report the truth to their readers, when it really counts, like 9-11, or the Basra incident where Brit troops dressed as arabs and shot and killed Iraqi police. We know we can't trust or count on the media anymore.
What kind of a civilisation are we if we haven't got the guts to tell the truth, and accept the consequences of our actions? I'd say we're a pretty immature and selfish one.
Don't rely on the media. Spread the word about WTC7 yourself.
Complain about this comment
I agree frasay. Once enough people get active and convince at least one other person, and so on, then no power on earth can stop the truth spreading. But what happens when Governments and the media spout one version of reality, while their populations believe another? That kind of disconnect I think will create a lot of problems re disillusion and, eventually, a violent counter-reaction. But then, if we are to root out the neocon cancer, where-ever it has taken hold, then maybe that is what is required.
Complain about this comment
269 and 270.
That is the correct track. e..g I have been handing out 'Zero' for about two months, some have resisted viewing it over a period of time. I keep pestering them (nicely) and get some good results.
Big win this morning. A senior equity Silk (barrister) came in and said that he eventually looked at it and I could tell that he thinks the original official Bush believers conspiracy theory is hogwash. So there BBC go put that in your pipe! (he is one of the increasing number who, when they look at the facts just laugh off the BBC version of the official conspircay theory.
Once it was considered a heresy to believe that the world was "round". Then the tipping point was reached, through scientific endeavour, the concept of what was normal shifted to what was once considered abnormal.
My friend the silk, even be he practising in equity, has enough common sense and scientific nouse to see the 'bs' of building No 7 at free fall speed.
As an engineer friend said to a once doubting lawyer some time ago; "you see ,there are loopholes in law are there not? Well there are no loopholes in the laws of physics"! (buildings do not come down like that under gravity alone)
In due course, those who did those heinous murders and those who gave them prior and subsequent comfort will know the ire of the world. We can learn from the dogged example, determination and experience of people like Simon Wiesenthall, no matter how old those who are guilty become, someone will be on their case, tracking down murderers and war ciminals, which includes their helpers.
Complain about this comment
spot on mallestump. building 7 is the key to the exposure of 9/11 I think. Friends of mine were initially aghast that I could believe in the alternative explanations. Amazingly, they had never even heard of building 7. (how can you defend a theory without being aware of major facts?) anyway, once we watched the freefall a few times on the net, this really got them thinking. Out of 5 "unbelievers" I have now made 2 converts. Not a bad hit rate.
One person at a time. Building 7 is the key to start.
Complain about this comment
I'm glad your all making inroads towards making the "Truth" common knowledge...but i'm struggling to convince anyone, i've even fallen out with family who think i'm a crank, the beeb has got the nation hooked with its drivel and bs and i'm starting to accept that the "people" as a whole dont want to know the "Truth", dont care about the "Truth" and are happy being the dumb, ignorant, stupid little drone they are bred to be!!....When will the world wake up to the injustice of globalization??
WTC7!!!! What a joke!!!!!
Even a 10 year old child can see the physics dont add up!!!
WTF is going on???....I feel so useless!
Complain about this comment
Zeroxero00,
Hang in there. It takes a while for people to come around sometimes, but the more they hear about WTC7, the more likely they will be to start considering alternative theories, one day. Maybe you won't get through to everyone, but you might loosen them up a bit. A lot of people can't handle the awfulness of it all, and many seem pretty apathetic and passionless, but thats not really their fault.
I have a video clip of WTC7 collapsing, on my phone, and now and then, depending on the situation, I ask if people have heard about the 3rd tower, and if they haven't I ask if they want to see it, and if they say yes, I show them. Then I explain that this collapse has been acknowledged and investigated by the US government (NIST). And I inform them that the mainstream media resfused to show video of the WTC7 collapse for about 6 years. Also that the 9-11 commission didn't mention it once in their report. Why the coverup of an important news event?...the first and only collapse, ever, of a high rise steel framed building from fire(apparently!).
Some people do some research, and a lot don't. It's the some that I concentrate on.
Don't waste too much energy on the people that don't seem to care. It's a numbers game. You'll find after a few years that there's a few more people around you who agree with your views. Judging by Rudin and Porters blog comments, they get a lot of emails about 9-11, so it's safe to assume that there are a lot of people who feel the same way as you and I.
If you find all the research is making you angry, take a break, and stop watching the news for a while, and then get back into the research if you feel like it, a while later.
How anyone can think WTC7 fell due to fire is really bizarre.
Complain about this comment
Once, before they've forbid it, the people could say whether they think US Government covered things up, this is what they've said.
http://netctr.com/images/cnnquickvote911.gif
It's just one of those historical curiosities.
Do tell, should we have a public vote on the front page?
Complain about this comment
beyond satire?
The beeb, 20th october:
"US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has told the BBC she believes the Middle East is a better place for the policies of President George W Bush.
Asked to assess the outgoing US administration's legacy, she said she was especially proud of the situation in the Palestinian territories.
She insisted that what she called a US-inspired "freedom agenda" had taken hold in the Middle East.
Ms Rice also said Iraq had become a "good Arab friend" of America.
"The Middle East is a different place and a better place," Ms Rice told BBC Arabic TV.
Iraq, far from being destroyed, was fully integrated into the Arab world, she said.
You gotta hand it to the neocons, they're nothing if not committed to the cause. They might live on a completely different planet to the rest of us, but at least their delusions are pretty consistent.
How many fingers am I holding up Winston?
Complain about this comment
I watched the film with interest . I am not a conspracy theorist however there are some things that puzzle me . For instance I dont believe an airliner hit the Pentagon simply because the hole was far too small and no one has explained why . it was a bloody big airliner travelling at 500 mph and it could not have been aimed so accurately especially as the last 300 metres would have meant flying the thing at about ten feet which is just impossible . I also do not believe that a plane crashed in Smallville from what I have seen ,apparently no debris and no bodies BUT what puzzles me most is that Mayor Guiliana states on video that someone came into his command post and said that they had to vacate ' because the towers were going to collapse ' . How could any one have known that . No one had been up to the fire site even the Fire Department so who was it knew that the towers were going to collapse when no one else did . Disappointed you never made that point because for me its the most important
Complain about this comment
Hi MoodyBlue,
Yes, the supporters of the official story like to slice and dice all the inconsistencies of 9/11 into neat little boxes so that somebody new to the Conspiracy Theories assume that everything is explainable and not extraordinary. The fact of the matter is you have only scratched the surface of the many, many anomalies of the official story. Something new pops up almost everyday but er... generally not reported in the mainstream media.
Oh and it was Shanksville. Smallville was Superboy's home town: another great American myth.
Complain about this comment
No Mystery? The Final Mystery?
So how do you explain this?
http://www.911blogger.com/node/18294
Date/time stamps on the recovered data file of Flight 77 Flight Data Recorder (FDR) is set before the time the FDR was recovered.
There is also no part number or serial number for the FDR which would have proved which air frame it was located within.
Analysis of the data has also many anomalies with observations and other aspects of the OCT. Check out pilotsfor911truth for details.
Complain about this comment
Spook> Ah, Mike Rudin, just the man.
Mike, Mick, Mikie, lets have a friendly little chat.
MR> Mike if you don't mind.
Spook> Mike don't talk just listen.
I know how you feel about 9/11 and especially The Third Tower and that's why we are so pleased to allow you to make this little programme. So pleased infact that we would like you to remake it with the new evedence of the NIST report.
We have contacted Michael Hess and he is willing to be re-interviewed to put the record stright. He is not happy that you made him look like he was saying that there were bombs in the building.
Unfortunately Barry Jennings will be unable to make it, he erm tripped and died of cancer. However I am sure you can add a narrative to his previous interviews in the light of what we now know to be the truth.
You know, where he comes to the bit where he says "I heard explosions" you can just add "we now know these to be the first tower collapsing". I am sure he would approve, it's not like he is going to object, hehhehe.
Look one more thing, can you make it a little more BALANCED this time, I know conspiricy sells but we must not sell the truth short. Our sponsors are very keen supporters of the NIST report, we must remember that.
I look forward to the new programme, the last one was very entertaining.
MR> OK, I will send you the DVD when it's done.
----------------
Secret transcript of a conversation between Mike Rudin and some secret spook, possibly ;-)
Complain about this comment
@280,
Interesting Barry Jennings said there was explosions in WTC7 before the towers came down... and even BBC journalist Stephen Evans says there were explosions at the BASE of the WTC1. His words here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/americas/2001/day_of_terror/timeline/
So has this evidence been investigated by NIST? Er... (no)
Complain about this comment
Actually the owner of WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 Larry Silverstein admitted that the WTC7 was pulled. Here is the evidence:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=-jPzAakHPpk
but the problem is that this interview only has been made years after 9/11 bombing, so how did the BBC know that the building 7 was going to collapse?
The evidence is here:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ejjySUVOGKA
And this BBC report was not a blue screen thingy, you can clearly see that the whole image changes relatively to the position of the camera.
And the questions are:
How did bbc know that the building was going to go down?
How is it possible to organise a controlled demolition of such a huge building in just a couple of hours when it usually takes minimum 2 months?
Complain about this comment
No Mystery?
There is no mystery. It was controlled demolition.
There's the Maths of the freefall collapse of WTC7 - freefall means NO RESISTANCE from the structure - that means Controlled Demolition
Physics - there is no mechanism for a natural collapse. NIST's explanation of thermal expansion is completely bonkers. Just show one diagram which can demonstrate NIST's theory. It just does not compute. There is no a single computer model that can reproduce the collapse captured on video.
Chemistry - all that dust! How can fire produce all that dust. And if you examine the dust you find an exotic explosive: nano-thermite. This has been proven by an international team of scientists.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_tf25lx_3o
Any standard fire investigation automatically looks for "accelerants" especially an incident connected with terrorists. And why wasn't one done for 9/11?
What is your conclusion?
Complain about this comment
ynda20 @283 "What is your conclusion?"
My conclusion is that Mike Rudin is correct, there is no mystery. The towers were brought down using a combination of explosives including nano-thermite.
The only people that had the "MEANS", "MOTIVE" and "OPPORTUNITY" to do this are elements of the US government/military (and other agencies both US and non-US)
Add to all the "errors", "holes", "inconsistencies" and "contradictions" in the "Official Conspiracy Theory" the latest scientific paper by Harrit that proves nano-thermite was used in the WTCs and you have proven "inside job"
NO MYSTERY there.
Complain about this comment
@284,
Hi Steve-$6m
To be fair it was Dr Shyam Sunder that said there was "No Mystery". He'd just spent the last N years developing computing models "explaining" the WTC7 collapse. However when questioned after NIST's publication of the draft in August by a School Maths Teacher about freefall, he went rather wobbly saying, no-no, can't have freefall. Trouble is... the easiest thing in the world is to plot the collapse: distance vs time on a graphic and PROVE it was freefall! The final NIST report even agreed, er... it was freefall. But apparently, even if his fundamental maths and physics were wrong, it was "No Mystery" to him. Shame he didn't bother looking for explosives in the dust like Prof Harrit rather than playing with computer models that still don't look like the actual collpase!!!
Rudin didn't say it was "No Mystery" - he just reported that. He stated it was the "Final Mystery" - despite the fact that um... we still don't know who did it, how the explosives were put into the building or why there has never been a full investigation of the foresenics, air crash, money trail, suspects etc etc.
Proof of an Inside Job indeed. But I think some mysteries still persist...
Complain about this comment
No Mystery?
WTC Building #7 (a 47-story high-rise not hit by an airplane) exhibits all the characteristics of a classic controlled demolition with explosives: (and some non-standard characteristics)
1. Rapid onset of collapse including freefall accleration (Not explained by Dr Shyam Sunder. Sunder first claimed that freefall could not occur. However this is easily proved and now confronted with freefall acceleration, NIST ignores it)
2. Sounds of explosions at ground floor - a full second prior to collapse (Dr Shyam Sunder says there was no explosive sounds at WTC7! His computer simulation ONLY researches a single explosion and not controlled demolition!)
3. Symmetrical collapse through the path of greatest resistance at free-fall acceleration (Dr Shyam Sunder claims there was a single failure and does not explain the symmetrical collapse. His computer models do not show symmetrical collapse!)
4. Imploded, collapsing completely, and landed mostly in its own footprint (Sunder states this is a coincidence)
5. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds (Dr Shyam Sunder ignores all physical evidence including the dust which does not occur in natural events).
6. Several tons of molten metal reported by numerous highly-qualified witnesses (Dr Shyam Sunder ignores all physical evidence including the molten steel).
7. Chemical signature of Thermite (high tech incendiary) found in solidified molten metal, and dust samples by physics professor Steven Jones, PhD and verified in a peer-reviewed scientific paper by Prof Harrit. (Dr Shyam Sunder ignores all physical evidence including the the "loaded gun" of unexploded nano-thermite found in all independently collected dust samples).
8. FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples. (Dr Shyam Sunder ignores all physical evidence including evidence of ultra high temperatures published in government reports).
9. Expert corroboration from the top European Controlled Demolition professional (Dr Shyam Sunder does not even acknowledge the possibilities of CD).
10. Fore-knowledge of collapse by media, NYPD, FDNY. Obviously ignored by Sunder and NIST.
And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e.
1. Slow onset with large visible deformations
2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, to the side most damaged by the fires)
3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never collapsed.
So we have Three Towers collapsing on the same day but having two different destruction methods according to the Official Story. Each tower exhibited the same "unique" and never seen before collapse method - that is, for a natural collapse. However all three towers look and correspond EXACTLY like controlled demolition, including down to the evidence of explosives in the dust.
Surely even with this shallow level of detail must feel the "No Mystery" tag to be entirely bogus, confusing, contradictory. An example even of Orwellian-esque Big Brother-dom Black is White statementing!
I am happy to be proved wrong...
Complain about this comment
#284
I am sure there should be a thousand "experts" out there with the ability to prove the CD theories wrong in clear, concise lay terms; so where are they? The fact that Mike Rudin has not felt it necessary to show contrition over his films says it all doesn't it?
I have replayed the collapse of WTC1 over and over again. The first seconds where the top appears to topple towards the north west but then falls straight down because there was nothing underneath it should tell us everything we need to know about 9/11. So why no criminal investigation?
The legacy of 9/11 was a pile of dust not three high rise ruins - has that ever happened before?
Complain about this comment
Where is the conscience of the BBC and it's loyalty to truth?
The Niels Harrit report (with 8 other scientists) on the finding of explosive thermitic residue in the twin towers dust, came out on the 3-4th April.
BBC, where is your report on those findings? Is there one comming? If not why not?
Does the BBC consider that it is duty bound to; it's viewers, the public, the licence holders, the world and all to correct the Mike Rudin "Mystery Solved" presentation that it now patently disproved.
Someone in the UK; please approach Michael Meacher MP (UK) on this, give him this information and the 'Caught up in a Conspircay' story, with coments and request him to ask in Parliament if the BBC will correct the misinformation apparent in the Rudin story?
If the Chief Constable expects the British to 'Bling" on everyone, there is no reason why the British viewers should not 'Bling" the BBC for their downright failure to correct the story above.
I would do it to our Australian Federal Parliamentarians but we do not have even one that can match the intellectual honesty of Mr Meacher. (just 'shivers' loking for a spine to climb, the lot of them!)
Complain about this comment
I want to add to this discussion that the "defence minister" Rumsfeld didn´t know where 2.5 TRILLION Dollars went, that are missing from his budget! That is enough money to do several black ops like the twin towers and WTC7. All the governments have lied to their citizens. All governments are made up of people that have their own agenda.
Complain about this comment
Hi Nyarlat, @289,
I think that was $2.3 trillion. Rumsfeld announced the accounting errors on 10th September 2001. The next day the computers holding the account details were destroyed in the Pentagon. Strangely there was no back up to the information on these computers. Defense IT systems are usually well backed-up (cf Commercial computers) - however all the data in the twin towers was recovered and IBM restored 1000 systems within 2 weeks of the disaster. Another strange coincidence.
Another lot of data was lost in WTC7: files connected with the Enron scandal which as linked Texas Businessmen with Texas politicians. No prizes for guessing who.
As for the $2.3 trillion, all but $700billion was later accounted for by the DoD. What could you do for $700billion?
Complain about this comment
"Hi
It really amuses me that people feel the US government was able to pull off 9/11 as a conspiracy but were then unable to 'find' weapons of mass destruction in the middle of a desert!
So in a conspiracy involving hundreds of people, who were themselves surrounded by thousands of people who might 'catch' them, the US government were successful and yet in the middle of a desert surrounded by nobody but who they decided could be there - nothing.
Odd isn't it!
Yours
Lawrence"
Lawrence they knew there was no WMD. That was another lie. The attacks on September 11th were not enough to get the general public to go along with them on going to war to Iraq. Don't you remember? Here in the UK with had the "dossier" and 45 minutes claims to persuade us, along with the WMD because we were even harder to convince than the Americans. The reason for going to war with Iraq was not to find WMD. They were not showing incompetence.
As others have said it did not have to involve 100's of people. You are assuming that. There was a complete black out of the upper floors over the weekend leading up to the attacks as reported by Scott Forbes.
Bush's brother was the head of security for the WTC complex and one of airports involved. I havent got the time or the energy to go into things in full detail, I could go on and on but all I ask is you look at things in more detail.
I didn't believe all the conspiracy nuts until one of friends said "How do you know the official story is true?". Up until that point I hadn't actually looked at the alternatives. At the very least I think we can all agree that a full independent investigation is needed. Why anyone would have any problem with that I don't know but the US government certainly has and so have ours over July 7th 2005.
Incedently and I can imagine the rolling eyes on this one already but did you know the train the July 7th bombers were supposed to have been on was cancelled! Yes the 7:40 from Luton was cancelled on that day! John Reid the home secretary at the time had to apologise to parliament for this. Did you know this? I didn't until just now. What I find concerning is that seems to be it. No further comment on what time train they did actually get on. Nothing. Looking at things more deeply it seems the earliest train they could have got after 7:40 was at 7:56, which would have meant they got to Kings Cross too late to get on the subway trains we are told they got on! I understand they could have got on a 7:25 train but thats not what we are being told.
http://bridgetdunnes.blogspot.com/2005/10/train-times-from-kings-x-at-last.html
http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/society/law_order/77+the+conspiracy+theories/545762
And the reports of possibly 3 terrorists shot in Canary Wharf around 10:30am are very interesting. Plus where is all the CCTV! We are shown some stills but the only video ever shown is of the supposed trail run a week earlier. Why will they not release the video? Same as the Pentagon, why no video. Could clear a lot of issues up very quickly. One can only assume they have something to hide or nothing to show that proves their story.
There is a much wider issue here don't just focus on September 11th. Look back through history from the war of independence, the Federal Reserve, numerous "false flag" operations both planned and executed in the past by the US government on their own people, which indicate September 11th to be the norm not the exception.
Complain about this comment
Re: Heidner papers
"BoNY reported an increase in the volume of securities on September 11."
"The critical perspective here is that in making the original paper on $240 Billion in illegitimate notes disappear in the rubble of the World Trade Center, it would be implausible to refinance them in a few days without the financial world taking note. "
Weren't there supposed to be rumors of this being russian mafia money ?
Complain about this comment
Hi Annuity @291,
When did your friends ask you about finding evidence for the Official Conspiracy Theory of 9/11? How long did it take you to decide the OCT was incomplete or wrong? What was the convincing piece of evidence that disproves the OCT in your opinion.
I've been commenting on both Mike Rudin's and Richard Porter's for some time and have yet to find any convincing thread that supports the OCT but yet, hey, in the everyday world few people question or even acknowledge there is anything wrong with the Big Lie that constitutes the OCT.
Complain about this comment
No Mystery? Well, Cconsider the facts...
WTC7 (the third skyscraper at WTC to fall) was Controlled Demolition. We know that because of the maths: freefall! It can't be a natural collapse.
Its fall was announced on the BBC before it happened (See Richard Porter's blogs!) yet we have since been told by NIST's Dr Shyam Sunder, that it was such a rare and unusual collapse that no-one could have predicted it.
The mechanism has been established by Danish scientist, Dr Harrit's peer-reviewed, published science paper: the explosive used was weaponised, nano-thermite - an exotic explosive that you cannot find in caves in Afghanistan. (cf weaponised Anthrax (from a US military lab) that arrived a week after 9/11 - nobody links these two events anymore although they were at the time!)
How was this explosive introduced: check out who ran the security at WTC on 9/11! (Whenever I mention his name my posts get blocked so you'll have to google it).
Why destroy WTC7? It contained the evidence in the ENRON case linking businessmen and politicians in er... Texas. No guesses who!
I guess there is no mystery but it is no what we've been told.
Complain about this comment
Do you still claim there is no mystery?
I mean anyone who has ever dug into the "Official Conspiracy Theory" put out by NIST and the 9/11 Commission knows full well that there are plenty of mysteries when it comes to 9/11.
Heck the commissioners themselves have since come out and said that "the commission was set up to fail" and "We were lied to by NORAD" and quite a few other choice comments.
NIST's reports have been shown to be complete whitewashes as well. The NIST report on WTC7 itself only analyses it up to the point of collapse initiation and then just assumes that once the building started to collapse it could not be stopped. Without providing any evidence such as the math and physics behind why that would be so.
What other mysteries are there about 9/11? Plenty of them, all you have to do is a little digging on your own and it won't take long to find a mountain of mysteries...
Here are a few pages to start your investigation and see just exactly how many mysteries there are...
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/911-beginners.php
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/9-11BasicQuestions.html
http://www.journalof911studies.com/beginners.html
No mystery my astrolab
Complain about this comment
"After three years extensive and exhaustive investigation NIST has published their final report on the World Trade Center and concluded that fire caused Tower 7 to collapse (pdf link). And they deduced from a series of highly complex computer models that the collapse started with the failure of just one column, column 79 on the 13th floor.
Dr Sunder added that the collapse of WTC7 represents the first known instance of the total collapse of a tall building primarily due to fires."
Seems strange then doesn't it that if they conducted a series of highly complex computer models (none of the software data has been released to the public for confirmation of their models by the way) that they would have modelled the entire collapse and not just up to the point of collapse initiation. Which is all they did, as soon as the collapse started they ASSUMED it was unstoppable and did no further analysis.
Complain about this comment
It is "No Mystery" that a government organisation did not research the option that 9/11 was a false flag attack and precluded any option that might point that way... their only conclusion was "hey, its magic, ok. Engineering magic!" How else do you defy Newton's Laws of Motion?
Complain about this comment
I have been a big Annie Machon fan for some time... she was a former MI5 intelligence officer and just oozes credibility.
She basically reiterates the points that, hey, I make (!) virtually every day, that WTC7 proves the official story wrong and shows it to be a false flag operation. She says false flag attacks happen again, again and again. The only difference with 9/11 is its sheer scale!
She says the evidence against the Official Story is "Rock Solid".
She says there are political leaders, scientists and engineers are all raising questions which ARE NOT REPORTED by the mainstream media: "go out and get active, while we still can..."
http://www.911blogger.com/node/20356
Complain about this comment
Annie Machon is awesome, I spoke to her in person when my group brought her to Ottawa a few weeks ago.
Check out my groups website @ http://www.truthactionottawa.com/
I don't think the full video has been release yet, our computer guy has been very, very busy with his day job and with doing a major make-over of the website and a few other things, but there is a 10 minute clip there at the moment.
Complain about this comment
No Mystery huh?
3000 comments later the mystery is still not resolved and the BBC have started slowly shutting the door on the discussion. To get at the latest discussion, use a direct URL:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2008/10/caught_up_in_a_conspiracy_theo.html?page=7
I urge anybody with a passing interest in our life, liberty and freedom and worry about the media's spin on the War on Terror and Iraq to come along and add a comment.
Complain about this comment
Well the caught up in a conspiracy theory blog seems to have been shut down, while older and less used blogs are kept up??? Well it does not say that it is closed as others that are closed do but you simply have nowhere to add any furhter posts.
Why is the BBC using all these dirty little tricks to silence us?
What are you trying to hide BBC?
Something like this maybe?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8104362.stm
Now what exactly is the BBC doing claiming that crowd is protesting ahmenijad (sorry for spelling :P ) when a slightly wider view of that same picture was on the Los Angeles Times web page and in the wider angle picture you can see ahmenijhad waving back at the crowd...they were not protesting they were cheering.
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/iranprop.php
BTW I can no longer find that picture on the LA Times webpage but it was there last night when I went to check, good thing Mike Rivero took a screen capture.
Any wonder no one trusts the BBC anymore?
Complain about this comment
OK ignore the part where I said that the "caught up in a conspiracy theory" blog is now closed. It must have been a bug because I can now post there again
Complain about this comment
No Mystery?
Who are you going to believe? Media types such as Rudin, politicians (proven liars and cheaters), scientists in paid employment of the US government...
Or independent professionals such as Richard Gage, AIA, who represents 700 architects and engineers?
See for yourself:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oO2yT0uBQbM
Complain about this comment
"No MYSTERY" says Mr Rudin and the BBC.
Well BBC and Mr Rudin how about considering these little aspects;
1. The finding of nano thermitic residue in samples of the dust from the twin towers and reported in the Niels Harrit paper dated about 4th April 2009.
NOTE: WHY HAS THE BBC NOT BROADCAST TO THE ENGLISH PUBLIC THOSE FINDINGS BY THE 9 SCIENTISTS? THE DANES HAD NO TROUBLE PUTTING IT ON THEIR TV. Are the English to be deliberately, not as informed as the Danes?
2. Specifically to building NO 7; When is the BBC and MR. Rudin going to inform the English public about the concession by NIST that No 7 fell for about the height of 8 floors at 'freefall' speed. Perhaps the BBC and Mr. Rudin do not appreciate the significance of that. Well, maybe they should go to some good 14 year old physics student and ask him or her. Clearly the BBC needs some tutoring. To find out what it means, have a look at David Chandler's physics lesson at the ae911truth site entitled "NIST admits Freefall"
3. When is the BBC and or Mr Rudin going to explain to the English public the discovery in the towers dust (with the explosive thermitic residue)of molten iron spheres about 1,000th of the width of a hair.
4. When is the BBC and or Mr Rudin going to explain to the English public how it came to be, that the molten metal spheres would float with the dust from the twin towers.
Get on with it BBC and Mr. Rudin; THE MYSTERY HAS BEEN NO WAY SOLVED.
Time to get real people, the twin towers and bulding No 7 were blown up and it is time to ask;
Why is the evidence, supporting that conclusion not being disclosed by the BBC?
Who blew up the Buildings?
Why were the buildings blown up?
Who has been part of an obvious coverup of the mass murder of those peole in the twin towers at the time of the explosions, who could otherwise have been rescued.
No way BBC is this mystery solved, nor is the mystery, as to why the BBC leaves misinformation uncorrected on the record, solved either.
BBC the tactics in rearanging access to the "Caught up in a Consrcay Theory" is noted. People, there are ove 3,100 comments on that thread dealing in detail with the 911 matter. The BBC has re-arranged accesss so that in relity one has to scroll through over 3,000 comments to get to the end.
On that thread the BBC has been requested on a number of times to enable reverse reading of the comments. i.e. place the last first.
Clearly the BBC for its own reasons will not provide that convenienece to the public, thus I am here. All of the matters refered to above have been dealt with in the "Caught up..." thread.
Complain about this comment
No Mystery?
How about all the unanswered questions from the 9/11 Families?
http://www.911independentcommission.org/questions.html
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS